<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_16_035245</id>
	<title>Navy Spends $33 Million For Hybrid of the High Sea</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1247745420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:mcooney@nww.com" rel="nofollow">coondoggie</a> writes <i>"Some might call it an enormous floating Prius, but others will call it a step in the right direction: <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/43570">A new hybrid electric engine for US Navy ships</a> that promises to save up to 12,000 barrels of oil a year per ship.

The folks who brought you the Predator unmanned flying aircraft, General Atomics, this week got $32.7 million to develop a proof-of-concept Hybrid Electric Drive (HED) system for a full-scale demonstration on board the Navy's DDG 51 Class destroyers.

DDG 51 destroyers are powered by General Electric gas turbines capable of moving the ships along at over 30 knots or about 35 mph. The General Atomics system would meld into this system and let the ship use electric power for slow-speed maneuvers.  The engines would provide more power as the ship needed to go faster."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " Some might call it an enormous floating Prius , but others will call it a step in the right direction : A new hybrid electric engine for US Navy ships that promises to save up to 12,000 barrels of oil a year per ship .
The folks who brought you the Predator unmanned flying aircraft , General Atomics , this week got $ 32.7 million to develop a proof-of-concept Hybrid Electric Drive ( HED ) system for a full-scale demonstration on board the Navy 's DDG 51 Class destroyers .
DDG 51 destroyers are powered by General Electric gas turbines capable of moving the ships along at over 30 knots or about 35 mph .
The General Atomics system would meld into this system and let the ship use electric power for slow-speed maneuvers .
The engines would provide more power as the ship needed to go faster .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "Some might call it an enormous floating Prius, but others will call it a step in the right direction: A new hybrid electric engine for US Navy ships that promises to save up to 12,000 barrels of oil a year per ship.
The folks who brought you the Predator unmanned flying aircraft, General Atomics, this week got $32.7 million to develop a proof-of-concept Hybrid Electric Drive (HED) system for a full-scale demonstration on board the Navy's DDG 51 Class destroyers.
DDG 51 destroyers are powered by General Electric gas turbines capable of moving the ships along at over 30 knots or about 35 mph.
The General Atomics system would meld into this system and let the ship use electric power for slow-speed maneuvers.
The engines would provide more power as the ship needed to go faster.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719509</id>
	<title>Re:Back when I was a kid...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247769240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hardly unprecedented, but the focus is very different. The old diesel electric subs ran on batteries only because they couldn't run the diesel under water. They were not at all  efficient and so the only reason a surfaced vessel would run on batteries is if the diesel was damaged.</p><p>On the other hand, this related (but not the same) technology is to be deployed in ships that do not submerge at all (we hope!) strictly for efficiency reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hardly unprecedented , but the focus is very different .
The old diesel electric subs ran on batteries only because they could n't run the diesel under water .
They were not at all efficient and so the only reason a surfaced vessel would run on batteries is if the diesel was damaged.On the other hand , this related ( but not the same ) technology is to be deployed in ships that do not submerge at all ( we hope !
) strictly for efficiency reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hardly unprecedented, but the focus is very different.
The old diesel electric subs ran on batteries only because they couldn't run the diesel under water.
They were not at all  efficient and so the only reason a surfaced vessel would run on batteries is if the diesel was damaged.On the other hand, this related (but not the same) technology is to be deployed in ships that do not submerge at all (we hope!
) strictly for efficiency reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715539</id>
	<title>Re:Only?</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1247753700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure that money only covers R&amp;D of the engine, not the ship or actual production of engines.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure that money only covers R&amp;D of the engine , not the ship or actual production of engines.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure that money only covers R&amp;D of the engine, not the ship or actual production of engines.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719577</id>
	<title>This looks like ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1247769480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... a direct drive gas turbine propulsion system with a motor-generator on the shaft. In one mode, the ship's auxiliary power can be diverted to assist the turbines. Or, at slow speeds, the turbines can be shut down and the ship driven by the auxiliary power system. Although I didn't see it mentioned in the article (but others have speculated about it), if the electrical system is bi-directional, one could tap the turbine power for a short time to power large electrical loads like a rail gun or laser.
</p><p>Its about time our navy catches up with the sharks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... a direct drive gas turbine propulsion system with a motor-generator on the shaft .
In one mode , the ship 's auxiliary power can be diverted to assist the turbines .
Or , at slow speeds , the turbines can be shut down and the ship driven by the auxiliary power system .
Although I did n't see it mentioned in the article ( but others have speculated about it ) , if the electrical system is bi-directional , one could tap the turbine power for a short time to power large electrical loads like a rail gun or laser .
Its about time our navy catches up with the sharks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... a direct drive gas turbine propulsion system with a motor-generator on the shaft.
In one mode, the ship's auxiliary power can be diverted to assist the turbines.
Or, at slow speeds, the turbines can be shut down and the ship driven by the auxiliary power system.
Although I didn't see it mentioned in the article (but others have speculated about it), if the electrical system is bi-directional, one could tap the turbine power for a short time to power large electrical loads like a rail gun or laser.
Its about time our navy catches up with the sharks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715551</id>
	<title>Re:Only?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247753760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's for the proof of concept only.  It'll generate white papers, power point slides, and cater business meetings and MAYBE generate a prototype version to show on the bench.  Outfitting the fleet will cost billions.  You can't install a phone jack on every DDG in the fleet for $33 million.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's for the proof of concept only .
It 'll generate white papers , power point slides , and cater business meetings and MAYBE generate a prototype version to show on the bench .
Outfitting the fleet will cost billions .
You ca n't install a phone jack on every DDG in the fleet for $ 33 million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's for the proof of concept only.
It'll generate white papers, power point slides, and cater business meetings and MAYBE generate a prototype version to show on the bench.
Outfitting the fleet will cost billions.
You can't install a phone jack on every DDG in the fleet for $33 million.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716155</id>
	<title>Re:Nice thing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now the US navy can bring death upon the <b>infidels</b> in a clean and environmentally safe way</p></div><p>Hmm...the US Navy is going to bomb US citizens?  Remember, the US (and some of the Western world) <b>are</b> the infidels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe wayHmm...the US Navy is going to bomb US citizens ?
Remember , the US ( and some of the Western world ) are the infidels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe wayHmm...the US Navy is going to bomb US citizens?
Remember, the US (and some of the Western world) are the infidels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715687</id>
	<title>Re:What would happen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247754540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno, what would happen if 30 tons of high explosive in the magazine explodes on the high seas? After, say, a torpedo strike?</p><p>Sheesh, the idiots you find on Slashdot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , what would happen if 30 tons of high explosive in the magazine explodes on the high seas ?
After , say , a torpedo strike ? Sheesh , the idiots you find on Slashdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, what would happen if 30 tons of high explosive in the magazine explodes on the high seas?
After, say, a torpedo strike?Sheesh, the idiots you find on Slashdot...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28718729</id>
	<title>Re:different type of hybrid</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1247766300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm actually sort of surprised that gas turbines are still being used for naval propulsion, given that they've seem to have fallen out of favor everyplace else due to their exceptionally poor efficiency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm actually sort of surprised that gas turbines are still being used for naval propulsion , given that they 've seem to have fallen out of favor everyplace else due to their exceptionally poor efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm actually sort of surprised that gas turbines are still being used for naval propulsion, given that they've seem to have fallen out of favor everyplace else due to their exceptionally poor efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716465</id>
	<title>Is is just me? ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Some might call it an enormous floating Prius</i></p><p>That read that as "enormous floating <i>Penis</i>" ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some might call it an enormous floating PriusThat read that as " enormous floating Penis " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some might call it an enormous floating PriusThat read that as "enormous floating Penis" ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715019</id>
	<title>Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.</title>
	<author>falcon5768</author>
	<datestamp>1247750340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You just did.

The life expectancy of a Navy ship is along the lines of 30-40 YEARS. As long as the engine doesn't eat it's self and can just be maintained then you will come close to if not completely pay for it's self. Also oil costs dont factor into the cost of physically refueling the ship. Plus if this engine works as planned, it will likely be significantly cheaper to build more since that 33 million rolls in development costs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You just did .
The life expectancy of a Navy ship is along the lines of 30-40 YEARS .
As long as the engine does n't eat it 's self and can just be maintained then you will come close to if not completely pay for it 's self .
Also oil costs dont factor into the cost of physically refueling the ship .
Plus if this engine works as planned , it will likely be significantly cheaper to build more since that 33 million rolls in development costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just did.
The life expectancy of a Navy ship is along the lines of 30-40 YEARS.
As long as the engine doesn't eat it's self and can just be maintained then you will come close to if not completely pay for it's self.
Also oil costs dont factor into the cost of physically refueling the ship.
Plus if this engine works as planned, it will likely be significantly cheaper to build more since that 33 million rolls in development costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716143</id>
	<title>Nice cover</title>
	<author>sunking2</author>
	<datestamp>1247756580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honest, its for a new propulsion system we are trying not to meet the power requirements for the super rail gun we are putting on our ships in case we need to shoot Decepticons from the top of a pyramid.</p><p>While I do joke, I do think this could be used as a test bed of some sort. Rail guns have been talked about before, and certainly laser technology has advanced. Just a thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honest , its for a new propulsion system we are trying not to meet the power requirements for the super rail gun we are putting on our ships in case we need to shoot Decepticons from the top of a pyramid.While I do joke , I do think this could be used as a test bed of some sort .
Rail guns have been talked about before , and certainly laser technology has advanced .
Just a thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honest, its for a new propulsion system we are trying not to meet the power requirements for the super rail gun we are putting on our ships in case we need to shoot Decepticons from the top of a pyramid.While I do joke, I do think this could be used as a test bed of some sort.
Rail guns have been talked about before, and certainly laser technology has advanced.
Just a thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715337</id>
	<title>Re:is 12,000 barrels alot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>The addition of this equipment would reduce DDG-51 ship fuel use by about 16\%.</p></div></blockquote><p>I've had too many wines to be assed doing the maths.... but 16\% should be perspective enough for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : The addition of this equipment would reduce DDG-51 ship fuel use by about 16 \ % .I 've had too many wines to be assed doing the maths.... but 16 \ % should be perspective enough for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:The addition of this equipment would reduce DDG-51 ship fuel use by about 16\%.I've had too many wines to be assed doing the maths.... but 16\% should be perspective enough for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715009</id>
	<title>Submarines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247750280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would have thought that the Navy would have led hybrid engine research with everything that was done in WWI and WWII for submarines.  Essentially those were hybrid engines, with the diesel's powering the boat on the surface and recharging the batteries, and then using the batteries when the ship was submerged.</p><p>That has all been supplanted by nuclear submarines, but you have to wonder where battery technology would be today if the Navy had kept using that system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have thought that the Navy would have led hybrid engine research with everything that was done in WWI and WWII for submarines .
Essentially those were hybrid engines , with the diesel 's powering the boat on the surface and recharging the batteries , and then using the batteries when the ship was submerged.That has all been supplanted by nuclear submarines , but you have to wonder where battery technology would be today if the Navy had kept using that system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have thought that the Navy would have led hybrid engine research with everything that was done in WWI and WWII for submarines.
Essentially those were hybrid engines, with the diesel's powering the boat on the surface and recharging the batteries, and then using the batteries when the ship was submerged.That has all been supplanted by nuclear submarines, but you have to wonder where battery technology would be today if the Navy had kept using that system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715103</id>
	<title>anonymous coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247751180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there anything being built in America these days,that does not destroy something??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anything being built in America these days,that does not destroy something ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anything being built in America these days,that does not destroy something?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715089</id>
	<title>Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.</title>
	<author>mrvan</author>
	<datestamp>1247751000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$100 per barrel= costs at the refinery.</p><p>The ships are generally in nasty, remote locations. Factor in the cost of building a supply ship and fueling that ship to get the fuel to the destroyer, PLUS escort, PLUS lost mission time and extra miles to go to refueling, and you will probably break even in the first year.</p><p>And then the ship has 30 more years to go.</p><p>I guess your tax dollars didn't go to elementary math &amp; common sense education, aka high school<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 100 per barrel = costs at the refinery.The ships are generally in nasty , remote locations .
Factor in the cost of building a supply ship and fueling that ship to get the fuel to the destroyer , PLUS escort , PLUS lost mission time and extra miles to go to refueling , and you will probably break even in the first year.And then the ship has 30 more years to go.I guess your tax dollars did n't go to elementary math &amp; common sense education , aka high school : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$100 per barrel= costs at the refinery.The ships are generally in nasty, remote locations.
Factor in the cost of building a supply ship and fueling that ship to get the fuel to the destroyer, PLUS escort, PLUS lost mission time and extra miles to go to refueling, and you will probably break even in the first year.And then the ship has 30 more years to go.I guess your tax dollars didn't go to elementary math &amp; common sense education, aka high school :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719715</id>
	<title>Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247769900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, the savings is PER SHIP. Second, you also have to count the costs of getting those 12000 barrels of fuel to the ship that needs it. It's not like they can just get off at the next exit to refuel. Next you have to consider the increased 'operational availability' of a ship with increased range. More availability means you don't have to have as many deployed for the same effect. Finally, in a war, supply lines can get less reliable or more costly (including lives). Needing less supplies is worth while even if it costs MORE that way. Since this reduces costs, all the better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the savings is PER SHIP .
Second , you also have to count the costs of getting those 12000 barrels of fuel to the ship that needs it .
It 's not like they can just get off at the next exit to refuel .
Next you have to consider the increased 'operational availability ' of a ship with increased range .
More availability means you do n't have to have as many deployed for the same effect .
Finally , in a war , supply lines can get less reliable or more costly ( including lives ) .
Needing less supplies is worth while even if it costs MORE that way .
Since this reduces costs , all the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, the savings is PER SHIP.
Second, you also have to count the costs of getting those 12000 barrels of fuel to the ship that needs it.
It's not like they can just get off at the next exit to refuel.
Next you have to consider the increased 'operational availability' of a ship with increased range.
More availability means you don't have to have as many deployed for the same effect.
Finally, in a war, supply lines can get less reliable or more costly (including lives).
Needing less supplies is worth while even if it costs MORE that way.
Since this reduces costs, all the better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715603</id>
	<title>Re:Not exactly a new idea</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1247754120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"German U-Boats in in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines. "</p><p>The germans didn't invent the submarine, John Holland (1840-1914) an Irish american did. I think the US navy already had some of his designs back before WWI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" German U-Boats in in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines .
" The germans did n't invent the submarine , John Holland ( 1840-1914 ) an Irish american did .
I think the US navy already had some of his designs back before WWI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"German U-Boats in in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines.
"The germans didn't invent the submarine, John Holland (1840-1914) an Irish american did.
I think the US navy already had some of his designs back before WWI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715215</id>
	<title>Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1247751720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would suspect that, while the "hybrid of the seas" shtick is a good line for jumping on the greenwashing bandwagon, the major interest is in the side benefits: electric engines should almost certainly be quieter and have a lower thermal signature than fossil fuel ones. Having the option to move around purely under electric power, when the situation calls for it and without excessive performance reduction, is probably pretty attractive.<br> <br>

Lower fuel consumption would (slightly) increase the ability to operate at the end of a long, inadequate, intermittent, or otherwise problematic supply chain, which could also be nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would suspect that , while the " hybrid of the seas " shtick is a good line for jumping on the greenwashing bandwagon , the major interest is in the side benefits : electric engines should almost certainly be quieter and have a lower thermal signature than fossil fuel ones .
Having the option to move around purely under electric power , when the situation calls for it and without excessive performance reduction , is probably pretty attractive .
Lower fuel consumption would ( slightly ) increase the ability to operate at the end of a long , inadequate , intermittent , or otherwise problematic supply chain , which could also be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would suspect that, while the "hybrid of the seas" shtick is a good line for jumping on the greenwashing bandwagon, the major interest is in the side benefits: electric engines should almost certainly be quieter and have a lower thermal signature than fossil fuel ones.
Having the option to move around purely under electric power, when the situation calls for it and without excessive performance reduction, is probably pretty attractive.
Lower fuel consumption would (slightly) increase the ability to operate at the end of a long, inadequate, intermittent, or otherwise problematic supply chain, which could also be nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716235</id>
	<title>The REAL reason for electric boats</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1247756940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you say "Rail Gun" or "LASER"?</p><p>These new weapons technologies (needed for interception of ballistic or hypersonic projectiles) will require a colossal amount of electric power.  If the ship is already geared up to be capable of storing a lot of power in its batteries, a major hurdle in the deployment of these weapons are overcome.</p><p>Maybe they could even use the tremendous kinetic energy of the ship moving at high speed to generate electricity from the motors.  Probably only useful in an emergency because it makes your ship a sitting duck!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you say " Rail Gun " or " LASER " ? These new weapons technologies ( needed for interception of ballistic or hypersonic projectiles ) will require a colossal amount of electric power .
If the ship is already geared up to be capable of storing a lot of power in its batteries , a major hurdle in the deployment of these weapons are overcome.Maybe they could even use the tremendous kinetic energy of the ship moving at high speed to generate electricity from the motors .
Probably only useful in an emergency because it makes your ship a sitting duck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you say "Rail Gun" or "LASER"?These new weapons technologies (needed for interception of ballistic or hypersonic projectiles) will require a colossal amount of electric power.
If the ship is already geared up to be capable of storing a lot of power in its batteries, a major hurdle in the deployment of these weapons are overcome.Maybe they could even use the tremendous kinetic energy of the ship moving at high speed to generate electricity from the motors.
Probably only useful in an emergency because it makes your ship a sitting duck!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716779</id>
	<title>Re:Not exactly a new idea</title>
	<author>Doctor Faustus</author>
	<datestamp>1247759220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>German U-Boats in in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines.</i><br>Essentially all submarines in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines, and basically any non-nuclear submarines today do, as well.  Earlier than WWII, the electric side was standard on all but the earliest impractical prototypes, and the other propulsion was experimented with until everyone settled on using diesel train locomotive engines.</p><p>That wasn't for efficiency, but because they couldn't use the fuel-burning engines underwater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>German U-Boats in in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines.Essentially all submarines in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines , and basically any non-nuclear submarines today do , as well .
Earlier than WWII , the electric side was standard on all but the earliest impractical prototypes , and the other propulsion was experimented with until everyone settled on using diesel train locomotive engines.That was n't for efficiency , but because they could n't use the fuel-burning engines underwater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>German U-Boats in in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines.Essentially all submarines in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines, and basically any non-nuclear submarines today do, as well.
Earlier than WWII, the electric side was standard on all but the earliest impractical prototypes, and the other propulsion was experimented with until everyone settled on using diesel train locomotive engines.That wasn't for efficiency, but because they couldn't use the fuel-burning engines underwater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716011</id>
	<title>12,000 barrels is not alot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Posted as AC because at work)</p><p>I was on a DDG. A full fuel load is somewhere between 400,000 and 450,000 of DFM (Diesel Fuel Marine) I believe the Nato term is F-76 of F-45 for this type of fuel but don't quote me on that, the memory is slipping. On a full power run, all 4 gas turbines engines online and the throttles set to full forward, we burn about 100,000 gallons an hour. This is extremely rare as it is wasteful. Only done for periodic testing of the ships systems, and when the ship really has to haul ass (imminent combat or other special circumstance require full speed with full reliabilty.) Normally the ship "steams" on one or two engines, and consumption if I remember can go down to something like 500 gallons per hour. Steaming across the sea at 20 knots with two engines running we burned something like 6k an hour but again I dont remember exactly. Saving 12,000 barrels in one year, which is 500,000 gallons according to Wikianswers, does not seem significant to me. But I guess it is something. Oh, but then the costs have to be counterbalanced with the cost of retrofitting the propulsion systems with an electrive drive, and the maintenance and repair costs on the said electric drive, and the additional training of ships crew to work with the new equipment. And also I would say the additional people onboard because of the extra equipment but, haha, im laughing inside, the Navy wouldn't do something like that, they would just pile more work onto already overworked engineers. </p><p>Also on a side note the generators providing electricity for the ship run on the same fuel. I guess the savings is allowed to happen because the generators are more efficient at generating electricity, sending it through the ships electrical distribution system, and powering an electric drive at certain shaft speeds, than the engines themselves are at those same speeds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Posted as AC because at work ) I was on a DDG .
A full fuel load is somewhere between 400,000 and 450,000 of DFM ( Diesel Fuel Marine ) I believe the Nato term is F-76 of F-45 for this type of fuel but do n't quote me on that , the memory is slipping .
On a full power run , all 4 gas turbines engines online and the throttles set to full forward , we burn about 100,000 gallons an hour .
This is extremely rare as it is wasteful .
Only done for periodic testing of the ships systems , and when the ship really has to haul ass ( imminent combat or other special circumstance require full speed with full reliabilty .
) Normally the ship " steams " on one or two engines , and consumption if I remember can go down to something like 500 gallons per hour .
Steaming across the sea at 20 knots with two engines running we burned something like 6k an hour but again I dont remember exactly .
Saving 12,000 barrels in one year , which is 500,000 gallons according to Wikianswers , does not seem significant to me .
But I guess it is something .
Oh , but then the costs have to be counterbalanced with the cost of retrofitting the propulsion systems with an electrive drive , and the maintenance and repair costs on the said electric drive , and the additional training of ships crew to work with the new equipment .
And also I would say the additional people onboard because of the extra equipment but , haha , im laughing inside , the Navy would n't do something like that , they would just pile more work onto already overworked engineers .
Also on a side note the generators providing electricity for the ship run on the same fuel .
I guess the savings is allowed to happen because the generators are more efficient at generating electricity , sending it through the ships electrical distribution system , and powering an electric drive at certain shaft speeds , than the engines themselves are at those same speeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Posted as AC because at work)I was on a DDG.
A full fuel load is somewhere between 400,000 and 450,000 of DFM (Diesel Fuel Marine) I believe the Nato term is F-76 of F-45 for this type of fuel but don't quote me on that, the memory is slipping.
On a full power run, all 4 gas turbines engines online and the throttles set to full forward, we burn about 100,000 gallons an hour.
This is extremely rare as it is wasteful.
Only done for periodic testing of the ships systems, and when the ship really has to haul ass (imminent combat or other special circumstance require full speed with full reliabilty.
) Normally the ship "steams" on one or two engines, and consumption if I remember can go down to something like 500 gallons per hour.
Steaming across the sea at 20 knots with two engines running we burned something like 6k an hour but again I dont remember exactly.
Saving 12,000 barrels in one year, which is 500,000 gallons according to Wikianswers, does not seem significant to me.
But I guess it is something.
Oh, but then the costs have to be counterbalanced with the cost of retrofitting the propulsion systems with an electrive drive, and the maintenance and repair costs on the said electric drive, and the additional training of ships crew to work with the new equipment.
And also I would say the additional people onboard because of the extra equipment but, haha, im laughing inside, the Navy wouldn't do something like that, they would just pile more work onto already overworked engineers.
Also on a side note the generators providing electricity for the ship run on the same fuel.
I guess the savings is allowed to happen because the generators are more efficient at generating electricity, sending it through the ships electrical distribution system, and powering an electric drive at certain shaft speeds, than the engines themselves are at those same speeds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717987</id>
	<title>Re:What would happen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if they've always called them "series hybrids" in locomotives, but that layout has been called a series hybrid in automobiles since at least the 1980s.  Although I think typically that the automotive designs include regenerative braking, while the locomotives include some way to dump power but no way to recapture it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if they 've always called them " series hybrids " in locomotives , but that layout has been called a series hybrid in automobiles since at least the 1980s .
Although I think typically that the automotive designs include regenerative braking , while the locomotives include some way to dump power but no way to recapture it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if they've always called them "series hybrids" in locomotives, but that layout has been called a series hybrid in automobiles since at least the 1980s.
Although I think typically that the automotive designs include regenerative braking, while the locomotives include some way to dump power but no way to recapture it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715461</id>
	<title>Re:Not exactly a new idea</title>
	<author>tompeach</author>
	<datestamp>1247753160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>surely using water motion to generate electricity would just create additional drag, so you'd end up with no net power gain?</htmltext>
<tokenext>surely using water motion to generate electricity would just create additional drag , so you 'd end up with no net power gain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>surely using water motion to generate electricity would just create additional drag, so you'd end up with no net power gain?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715205</id>
	<title>Re:Submarines</title>
	<author>Shinobi</author>
	<datestamp>1247751720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the US knowhow in that area, it hasn't disappeared in other parts of the world, for example Sweden and Germany. Sweden was also the first to use a Stirling engine, so it can recharge the batteries without having to go to snorkle depth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the US knowhow in that area , it has n't disappeared in other parts of the world , for example Sweden and Germany .
Sweden was also the first to use a Stirling engine , so it can recharge the batteries without having to go to snorkle depth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the US knowhow in that area, it hasn't disappeared in other parts of the world, for example Sweden and Germany.
Sweden was also the first to use a Stirling engine, so it can recharge the batteries without having to go to snorkle depth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28728637</id>
	<title>Green Warship</title>
	<author>levicivita</author>
	<datestamp>1247840400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it shoot organic missiles while sipping wine and complaining about SUV drivers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it shoot organic missiles while sipping wine and complaining about SUV drivers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it shoot organic missiles while sipping wine and complaining about SUV drivers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715405</id>
	<title>Regenerative Braking</title>
	<author>tangent3</author>
	<datestamp>1247752800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does regenerative braking work in the high seas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does regenerative braking work in the high seas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does regenerative braking work in the high seas?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715733</id>
	<title>Re:What would happen...</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1247754780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not at all. A locomotive is not a hybrid, as there is only a single type of motor used for motive power.  Calling them 'series hybrid' vehicles only started very recently, when manufacturers wanted to cash in on a buzzword.<br> <br>

If you check out the <a href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120175200/abstract" title="wiley.com">Journal article</a> [wiley.com], they describe this system as an electric motor mounted on the drive shaft, powered by existing auxiliary electrical generation capacity on the ship.  The motor would only be used at speeds under 12kt at maybe 1/10th peak power output, when the efficiency drops off considerably and the turbines are basically idling.  The system would be set up to run in reverse, providing power back to the ship, presumably for future electric artillery that the Navy is developing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not at all .
A locomotive is not a hybrid , as there is only a single type of motor used for motive power .
Calling them 'series hybrid ' vehicles only started very recently , when manufacturers wanted to cash in on a buzzword .
If you check out the Journal article [ wiley.com ] , they describe this system as an electric motor mounted on the drive shaft , powered by existing auxiliary electrical generation capacity on the ship .
The motor would only be used at speeds under 12kt at maybe 1/10th peak power output , when the efficiency drops off considerably and the turbines are basically idling .
The system would be set up to run in reverse , providing power back to the ship , presumably for future electric artillery that the Navy is developing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not at all.
A locomotive is not a hybrid, as there is only a single type of motor used for motive power.
Calling them 'series hybrid' vehicles only started very recently, when manufacturers wanted to cash in on a buzzword.
If you check out the Journal article [wiley.com], they describe this system as an electric motor mounted on the drive shaft, powered by existing auxiliary electrical generation capacity on the ship.
The motor would only be used at speeds under 12kt at maybe 1/10th peak power output, when the efficiency drops off considerably and the turbines are basically idling.
The system would be set up to run in reverse, providing power back to the ship, presumably for future electric artillery that the Navy is developing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715945</id>
	<title>Re:What would happen...</title>
	<author>WalksOnDirt</author>
	<datestamp>1247755740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If 30 tons of Lithium batteries burst open on the high seas?</p></div></blockquote><p>Lithium batteries currently in production aren't rechargeable, so I doubt they would use them.  Lithium-ion batteries don't contain metallic lithium (unless they are malfunctioning), so breaching them shouldn't be particularly interesting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If 30 tons of Lithium batteries burst open on the high seas ? Lithium batteries currently in production are n't rechargeable , so I doubt they would use them .
Lithium-ion batteries do n't contain metallic lithium ( unless they are malfunctioning ) , so breaching them should n't be particularly interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 30 tons of Lithium batteries burst open on the high seas?Lithium batteries currently in production aren't rechargeable, so I doubt they would use them.
Lithium-ion batteries don't contain metallic lithium (unless they are malfunctioning), so breaching them shouldn't be particularly interesting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714867</id>
	<title>The rise of Idiot America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-- Charles P. Pierce, from "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free"</p><p>Pity the poor "real Americans," because they sure feel sorry for themselves. Self-pity appears to be the latest national craze. Not that we haven't got real troubles, but everywhere you look and listen these days, some big crybaby's blubbering about how people like him or her get no respect from (take your pick) "Ivy League elitists," the "scientific establishment," "so-called sophisticates," the "mainstream media" and so on.</p><p>But hey, Americans don't come any realer than me. I learned that recently from MSNBC news-chat personality Mika Brzezinski. Discussing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's supporters on  "Morning Joe," Brzezinski allowed as how us country folks (I live in a rural county with a lot more cows than people) constitute the nation's moral backbone. "God, I hate to say it," Brzezinski allowed, "but in the cities where there are a little bit more liberal elite populations, you are not going to find what is representative of America."</p><p>Sigh. We already tried that. It brought us George W. Bush, a synthetic cowboy who dropped the "rancher" pose the minute he left the White House. Back in 2001, metropolitan pundits -- seemingly unfamiliar with the oeuvre of Hank Williams and Garth Brooks -- kept telling us about the superior moral instincts of us "red state" voters.</p><p>Brzezinski's the daughter of former Carter administration national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and attended several fancy private schools. So I'm guessing she doesn't know a lot of drinkin' and cheatin' songs either.</p><p>The occasion of the MSNBC pundit's comments was Palin's poor-pitiful-me resignation speech, the one that sounded like an audition for the Lucille Ball part in an "I Love Lucy" revival.</p><p>"Life is too short to compromise time and resources," Palin said. "It may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along and appease those who demand: 'Sit down and shut up,' but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and 'go with the flow.' Nah, only dead fish 'go with the flow.'"</p><p>No dead-fish quitter she, Palin quit.</p><p>Having spent much of her tenure as Alaska's governor scheming to fire her ex-brother-in-law from the state police and having her press secretary issue statements contradicting her daughter's 18-year-old former boyfriend, Palin evidently mistook national politics for one long Miss Congeniality contest.</p><p>That is, until she started picking fights with TV comics and whining that nobody before her had been so victimized by "the politics of personal destruction" -- a phrase Bill Clinton coined after Republican operatives accused him and his wife of murder.</p><p>Chances are Palin doesn't know that, as she appears to know precious little else. Even many conservatives who supported Bush almost to the end fear that the Republicans have finally touched bottom.</p><p>"In television interviews," Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity."</p><p>Palin's authentic, all right: An authentic product of what author Charles P. Pierce calls the "Three Great Premises" of America's decayed TV celebrity culture. First, "Any theory is valid if it moves units," i..e. sells advertising. Second, "Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough." Third, "Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it."</p><p>The cultural left is sometimes as prone to dimwit populism as the right. Witness the Rev. Al Sharpton moving an audience to tears by assuring Michael Jackson's children that he wasn't "strange," but his crit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-- Charles P. Pierce , from " Idiot America : How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free " Pity the poor " real Americans , " because they sure feel sorry for themselves .
Self-pity appears to be the latest national craze .
Not that we have n't got real troubles , but everywhere you look and listen these days , some big crybaby 's blubbering about how people like him or her get no respect from ( take your pick ) " Ivy League elitists , " the " scientific establishment , " " so-called sophisticates , " the " mainstream media " and so on.But hey , Americans do n't come any realer than me .
I learned that recently from MSNBC news-chat personality Mika Brzezinski .
Discussing Alaska Gov .
Sarah Palin 's supporters on " Morning Joe , " Brzezinski allowed as how us country folks ( I live in a rural county with a lot more cows than people ) constitute the nation 's moral backbone .
" God , I hate to say it , " Brzezinski allowed , " but in the cities where there are a little bit more liberal elite populations , you are not going to find what is representative of America. " Sigh .
We already tried that .
It brought us George W. Bush , a synthetic cowboy who dropped the " rancher " pose the minute he left the White House .
Back in 2001 , metropolitan pundits -- seemingly unfamiliar with the oeuvre of Hank Williams and Garth Brooks -- kept telling us about the superior moral instincts of us " red state " voters.Brzezinski 's the daughter of former Carter administration national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski , and attended several fancy private schools .
So I 'm guessing she does n't know a lot of drinkin ' and cheatin ' songs either.The occasion of the MSNBC pundit 's comments was Palin 's poor-pitiful-me resignation speech , the one that sounded like an audition for the Lucille Ball part in an " I Love Lucy " revival .
" Life is too short to compromise time and resources , " Palin said .
" It may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down , plod along and appease those who demand : 'Sit down and shut up, ' but that 's the worthless , easy path ; that 's a quitter 's way out .
And a problem in our country today is apathy .
It would be apathetic to just hunker down and 'go with the flow .
' Nah , only dead fish 'go with the flow .
' " No dead-fish quitter she , Palin quit.Having spent much of her tenure as Alaska 's governor scheming to fire her ex-brother-in-law from the state police and having her press secretary issue statements contradicting her daughter 's 18-year-old former boyfriend , Palin evidently mistook national politics for one long Miss Congeniality contest.That is , until she started picking fights with TV comics and whining that nobody before her had been so victimized by " the politics of personal destruction " -- a phrase Bill Clinton coined after Republican operatives accused him and his wife of murder.Chances are Palin does n't know that , as she appears to know precious little else .
Even many conservatives who supported Bush almost to the end fear that the Republicans have finally touched bottom .
" In television interviews , " Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal , " she was out of her depth in a shallow pool .
She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions , and sometimes in knowing them .
She could n't say what she read because she did n't read anything .
She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it : It was evidence of her authenticity .
" Palin 's authentic , all right : An authentic product of what author Charles P. Pierce calls the " Three Great Premises " of America 's decayed TV celebrity culture .
First , " Any theory is valid if it moves units , " i..e. sells advertising .
Second , " Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough .
" Third , " Fact is that which enough people believe .
Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it .
" The cultural left is sometimes as prone to dimwit populism as the right .
Witness the Rev .
Al Sharpton moving an audience to tears by assuring Michael Jackson 's children that he was n't " strange , " but his crit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-- Charles P. Pierce, from "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free"Pity the poor "real Americans," because they sure feel sorry for themselves.
Self-pity appears to be the latest national craze.
Not that we haven't got real troubles, but everywhere you look and listen these days, some big crybaby's blubbering about how people like him or her get no respect from (take your pick) "Ivy League elitists," the "scientific establishment," "so-called sophisticates," the "mainstream media" and so on.But hey, Americans don't come any realer than me.
I learned that recently from MSNBC news-chat personality Mika Brzezinski.
Discussing Alaska Gov.
Sarah Palin's supporters on  "Morning Joe," Brzezinski allowed as how us country folks (I live in a rural county with a lot more cows than people) constitute the nation's moral backbone.
"God, I hate to say it," Brzezinski allowed, "but in the cities where there are a little bit more liberal elite populations, you are not going to find what is representative of America."Sigh.
We already tried that.
It brought us George W. Bush, a synthetic cowboy who dropped the "rancher" pose the minute he left the White House.
Back in 2001, metropolitan pundits -- seemingly unfamiliar with the oeuvre of Hank Williams and Garth Brooks -- kept telling us about the superior moral instincts of us "red state" voters.Brzezinski's the daughter of former Carter administration national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and attended several fancy private schools.
So I'm guessing she doesn't know a lot of drinkin' and cheatin' songs either.The occasion of the MSNBC pundit's comments was Palin's poor-pitiful-me resignation speech, the one that sounded like an audition for the Lucille Ball part in an "I Love Lucy" revival.
"Life is too short to compromise time and resources," Palin said.
"It may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along and appease those who demand: 'Sit down and shut up,' but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out.
And a problem in our country today is apathy.
It would be apathetic to just hunker down and 'go with the flow.
' Nah, only dead fish 'go with the flow.
'"No dead-fish quitter she, Palin quit.Having spent much of her tenure as Alaska's governor scheming to fire her ex-brother-in-law from the state police and having her press secretary issue statements contradicting her daughter's 18-year-old former boyfriend, Palin evidently mistook national politics for one long Miss Congeniality contest.That is, until she started picking fights with TV comics and whining that nobody before her had been so victimized by "the politics of personal destruction" -- a phrase Bill Clinton coined after Republican operatives accused him and his wife of murder.Chances are Palin doesn't know that, as she appears to know precious little else.
Even many conservatives who supported Bush almost to the end fear that the Republicans have finally touched bottom.
"In television interviews," Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "she was out of her depth in a shallow pool.
She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them.
She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything.
She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity.
"Palin's authentic, all right: An authentic product of what author Charles P. Pierce calls the "Three Great Premises" of America's decayed TV celebrity culture.
First, "Any theory is valid if it moves units," i..e. sells advertising.
Second, "Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough.
" Third, "Fact is that which enough people believe.
Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it.
"The cultural left is sometimes as prone to dimwit populism as the right.
Witness the Rev.
Al Sharpton moving an audience to tears by assuring Michael Jackson's children that he wasn't "strange," but his crit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715133</id>
	<title>Re:Submarines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247751360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That has all been supplanted by nuclear submarines, but you have to wonder where battery technology would be today if the Navy had kept using that system.</i> <br> <br>
Perhaps.  The difference is that there's not so huge an impetus for reducing weight when we're looking at a battleship or submarine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That has all been supplanted by nuclear submarines , but you have to wonder where battery technology would be today if the Navy had kept using that system .
Perhaps. The difference is that there 's not so huge an impetus for reducing weight when we 're looking at a battleship or submarine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That has all been supplanted by nuclear submarines, but you have to wonder where battery technology would be today if the Navy had kept using that system.
Perhaps.  The difference is that there's not so huge an impetus for reducing weight when we're looking at a battleship or submarine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717869</id>
	<title>Easy</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247763420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you slow down, you let the friction of the water turn the blades and capture that energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you slow down , you let the friction of the water turn the blades and capture that energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you slow down, you let the friction of the water turn the blades and capture that energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907</id>
	<title>What would happen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If 30 tons of Lithium batteries burst open on the high seas? After,say, a torpedo strike?</p><p>I bet it would be spectacular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If 30 tons of Lithium batteries burst open on the high seas ?
After,say , a torpedo strike ? I bet it would be spectacular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 30 tons of Lithium batteries burst open on the high seas?
After,say, a torpedo strike?I bet it would be spectacular.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715281</id>
	<title>Re:is 12,000 barrels alot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the article said it would reduce fuel consumption by about 16\%.  If 12,000 = 0.16x, then x, the ship's total consumption in a year, is about 75,000 barrels.  A barrel of fuel is 42 gallons.  So, overall, we're talking about an annual consumption of 3.15 million gallons of fuel.  <br> <br>

Appropriate analogs to such a volume are difficult to convey.  It is roughly <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olympic-size\_swimming\_pool&amp;oldid=300285292" title="wikipedia.org">five olympic-sized swimming pools</a> [wikipedia.org].  Across the entire fleet of destroyers that would get this modification, the annual savings would be on the order of one supertanker's worth of crude.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the article said it would reduce fuel consumption by about 16 \ % .
If 12,000 = 0.16x , then x , the ship 's total consumption in a year , is about 75,000 barrels .
A barrel of fuel is 42 gallons .
So , overall , we 're talking about an annual consumption of 3.15 million gallons of fuel .
Appropriate analogs to such a volume are difficult to convey .
It is roughly five olympic-sized swimming pools [ wikipedia.org ] .
Across the entire fleet of destroyers that would get this modification , the annual savings would be on the order of one supertanker 's worth of crude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the article said it would reduce fuel consumption by about 16\%.
If 12,000 = 0.16x, then x, the ship's total consumption in a year, is about 75,000 barrels.
A barrel of fuel is 42 gallons.
So, overall, we're talking about an annual consumption of 3.15 million gallons of fuel.
Appropriate analogs to such a volume are difficult to convey.
It is roughly five olympic-sized swimming pools [wikipedia.org].
Across the entire fleet of destroyers that would get this modification, the annual savings would be on the order of one supertanker's worth of crude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715035</id>
	<title>is 12,000 barrels alot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247750520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>could someone put that into perspective, how many barrels would a ship normally expect to get through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>could someone put that into perspective , how many barrels would a ship normally expect to get through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>could someone put that into perspective, how many barrels would a ship normally expect to get through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714959</id>
	<title>Re:What would happen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article doesn't actually talk about batteries. It says:<p><div class="quote"><p>the ship use electric power for slow-speed maneuvers</p></div><p>But I think this may be a hybrid like a train.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does n't actually talk about batteries .
It says : the ship use electric power for slow-speed maneuversBut I think this may be a hybrid like a train .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article doesn't actually talk about batteries.
It says:the ship use electric power for slow-speed maneuversBut I think this may be a hybrid like a train.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28718023</id>
	<title>Re:What would happen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ships guns already run on electricity. Electro hydraulic, to be precise.  USS Richard E. Byrd had auxiliary diesel power. (a grown man can stand inside one of the cylinders) The boilers could be total wrecks from a torpedo or missile hit, but if the ship stayed afloat, that diesel could power EVERYTHING aboard ship except the screws.  Some people might be surprised to learn that the primers in the powder cartridges are electric - there's no "firing pin" in a big gun.</p><p><a href="http://ussbadger-1071.org/menus/weapons/5\_inch\_gun/mk42.htm" title="ussbadger-1071.org">http://ussbadger-1071.org/menus/weapons/5\_inch\_gun/mk42.htm</a> [ussbadger-1071.org]</p><p>In fact, it would be quite an engineering feat to load, traverse, and elevate those guns in half a heartbeat, almost silently, using mechanical means.  I don't expect that eliminating the hydraulic portions of the gun mount will make the guns any faster, any quieter, any more reliable, or any more accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ships guns already run on electricity .
Electro hydraulic , to be precise .
USS Richard E. Byrd had auxiliary diesel power .
( a grown man can stand inside one of the cylinders ) The boilers could be total wrecks from a torpedo or missile hit , but if the ship stayed afloat , that diesel could power EVERYTHING aboard ship except the screws .
Some people might be surprised to learn that the primers in the powder cartridges are electric - there 's no " firing pin " in a big gun.http : //ussbadger-1071.org/menus/weapons/5 \ _inch \ _gun/mk42.htm [ ussbadger-1071.org ] In fact , it would be quite an engineering feat to load , traverse , and elevate those guns in half a heartbeat , almost silently , using mechanical means .
I do n't expect that eliminating the hydraulic portions of the gun mount will make the guns any faster , any quieter , any more reliable , or any more accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ships guns already run on electricity.
Electro hydraulic, to be precise.
USS Richard E. Byrd had auxiliary diesel power.
(a grown man can stand inside one of the cylinders) The boilers could be total wrecks from a torpedo or missile hit, but if the ship stayed afloat, that diesel could power EVERYTHING aboard ship except the screws.
Some people might be surprised to learn that the primers in the powder cartridges are electric - there's no "firing pin" in a big gun.http://ussbadger-1071.org/menus/weapons/5\_inch\_gun/mk42.htm [ussbadger-1071.org]In fact, it would be quite an engineering feat to load, traverse, and elevate those guns in half a heartbeat, almost silently, using mechanical means.
I don't expect that eliminating the hydraulic portions of the gun mount will make the guns any faster, any quieter, any more reliable, or any more accurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971</id>
	<title>Not exactly a new idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ships have had multiple methods of propulsion for a long time; early ocean going steamships also had masts and rigging for sail in emergencies, German U-Boats in in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines.  Frankly, I'm surprised that this research hadn't already been started, albeit to reduce dependence of foreign oil rather than out of any concern for the environment given the stance of the Bush Presidency on such matters.  Still, it'll be interesting to see what they can come up with.  Maybe something like the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) that was used in some Formula One cars this year; use the motion of water past the hull and in the wake to generate electricity while the vessel is underway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ships have had multiple methods of propulsion for a long time ; early ocean going steamships also had masts and rigging for sail in emergencies , German U-Boats in in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines .
Frankly , I 'm surprised that this research had n't already been started , albeit to reduce dependence of foreign oil rather than out of any concern for the environment given the stance of the Bush Presidency on such matters .
Still , it 'll be interesting to see what they can come up with .
Maybe something like the Kinetic Energy Recovery System ( KERS ) that was used in some Formula One cars this year ; use the motion of water past the hull and in the wake to generate electricity while the vessel is underway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ships have had multiple methods of propulsion for a long time; early ocean going steamships also had masts and rigging for sail in emergencies, German U-Boats in in WWII had dual diesel/electric engines.
Frankly, I'm surprised that this research hadn't already been started, albeit to reduce dependence of foreign oil rather than out of any concern for the environment given the stance of the Bush Presidency on such matters.
Still, it'll be interesting to see what they can come up with.
Maybe something like the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) that was used in some Formula One cars this year; use the motion of water past the hull and in the wake to generate electricity while the vessel is underway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719537</id>
	<title>Re:Regenerative Braking</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247769360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly enough, it could sort of work. If you disconnect the screws from the main engines and reverse the motor into a generator, it WILL slow the ship and will generate electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough , it could sort of work .
If you disconnect the screws from the main engines and reverse the motor into a generator , it WILL slow the ship and will generate electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough, it could sort of work.
If you disconnect the screws from the main engines and reverse the motor into a generator, it WILL slow the ship and will generate electricity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28726489</id>
	<title>Re:Nice thing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247770620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Change you can believe in!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p><p>I can here the deafening roar of millions of Americans simultaniously slapping their foreheads and shouting "Doh!"</p><p>Suckers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Change you can believe in !
: DI can here the deafening roar of millions of Americans simultaniously slapping their foreheads and shouting " Doh !
" Suckers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Change you can believe in!
:DI can here the deafening roar of millions of Americans simultaniously slapping their foreheads and shouting "Doh!
"Suckers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714949</id>
	<title>Re:What would happen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the plus side, won't be polluting the waters for long!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the plus side , wo n't be polluting the waters for long !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the plus side, won't be polluting the waters for long!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715993</id>
	<title>Re:2 questions?</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1247755920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Can it pull up next to a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier and recharge? </i> <br> <br>
Valid question.  I don't see how using electric power is going to save them any fuel.  The batteries need to be charged somehow, and that somehow is by using a generator connected to a fuel burning engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can it pull up next to a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier and recharge ?
Valid question .
I do n't see how using electric power is going to save them any fuel .
The batteries need to be charged somehow , and that somehow is by using a generator connected to a fuel burning engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can it pull up next to a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier and recharge?
Valid question.
I don't see how using electric power is going to save them any fuel.
The batteries need to be charged somehow, and that somehow is by using a generator connected to a fuel burning engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939</id>
	<title>So that's where our tax dollars go.</title>
	<author>bytestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1247749740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>12000 barrels per year at $100 per barrel, 1,200,000.  Cost to save 12000 barrels per year with hybrid drive, 8.8 million (plus 17.1 million initial cost).

Can someone explain the economic benefit of this move?</htmltext>
<tokenext>12000 barrels per year at $ 100 per barrel , 1,200,000 .
Cost to save 12000 barrels per year with hybrid drive , 8.8 million ( plus 17.1 million initial cost ) .
Can someone explain the economic benefit of this move ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>12000 barrels per year at $100 per barrel, 1,200,000.
Cost to save 12000 barrels per year with hybrid drive, 8.8 million (plus 17.1 million initial cost).
Can someone explain the economic benefit of this move?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719849</id>
	<title>Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1247770440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> would suspect that, while the "hybrid of the seas" shtick is a good line for jumping on the greenwashing bandwagon</p></div><p>The navy just heard it can get $4,500 per warship in the "Cash for Clunkers" program.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>would suspect that , while the " hybrid of the seas " shtick is a good line for jumping on the greenwashing bandwagonThe navy just heard it can get $ 4,500 per warship in the " Cash for Clunkers " program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> would suspect that, while the "hybrid of the seas" shtick is a good line for jumping on the greenwashing bandwagonThe navy just heard it can get $4,500 per warship in the "Cash for Clunkers" program.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717919</id>
	<title>Re:2 questions?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247763600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now most large naval vessels are diesel-electric, like a locomotive. This enables them to do away with the drivetrain and run the screws at any level of power that the engines are currently capable of producing. At low speeds the engines are run out of their power band. If you don't have to run the engines at all to move at low speeds, then you can save a lot of fuel. When the batteries are depleted, the engines can be run at peak efficiency while they are recharged, and while the vessel is immobile or moving at manouvering speed. I imagine they can also be trickle charged while cruising. The vessels could also be charged from the grid while in port, and they could enter and exit ports on battery power with <em>zero emissions</em>. That's a big deal, because port pollution is a big deal.</p><p>In short, having batteries will enable the operation of the engines at peak efficiency more of the time. But the short explanation is never the fun one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now most large naval vessels are diesel-electric , like a locomotive .
This enables them to do away with the drivetrain and run the screws at any level of power that the engines are currently capable of producing .
At low speeds the engines are run out of their power band .
If you do n't have to run the engines at all to move at low speeds , then you can save a lot of fuel .
When the batteries are depleted , the engines can be run at peak efficiency while they are recharged , and while the vessel is immobile or moving at manouvering speed .
I imagine they can also be trickle charged while cruising .
The vessels could also be charged from the grid while in port , and they could enter and exit ports on battery power with zero emissions .
That 's a big deal , because port pollution is a big deal.In short , having batteries will enable the operation of the engines at peak efficiency more of the time .
But the short explanation is never the fun one : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now most large naval vessels are diesel-electric, like a locomotive.
This enables them to do away with the drivetrain and run the screws at any level of power that the engines are currently capable of producing.
At low speeds the engines are run out of their power band.
If you don't have to run the engines at all to move at low speeds, then you can save a lot of fuel.
When the batteries are depleted, the engines can be run at peak efficiency while they are recharged, and while the vessel is immobile or moving at manouvering speed.
I imagine they can also be trickle charged while cruising.
The vessels could also be charged from the grid while in port, and they could enter and exit ports on battery power with zero emissions.
That's a big deal, because port pollution is a big deal.In short, having batteries will enable the operation of the engines at peak efficiency more of the time.
But the short explanation is never the fun one :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28720767</id>
	<title>Re:Nice thing.</title>
	<author>muzicman</author>
	<datestamp>1247773860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't we suppose to be the infidels???</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't we suppose to be the infidels ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't we suppose to be the infidels??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28744487</id>
	<title>Re:Not exactly a new idea</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1247924220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Frankly, I'm surprised that this research hadn't already been started</p></div><p>This research has been going on for years.  This isn't the announcement of a new program, this is the announcement of it reaching a milestone.  <a href="http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003390.html" title="defensetech.org">Here's a link</a> [defensetech.org] from over two years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I 'm surprised that this research had n't already been startedThis research has been going on for years .
This is n't the announcement of a new program , this is the announcement of it reaching a milestone .
Here 's a link [ defensetech.org ] from over two years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I'm surprised that this research hadn't already been startedThis research has been going on for years.
This isn't the announcement of a new program, this is the announcement of it reaching a milestone.
Here's a link [defensetech.org] from over two years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715131</id>
	<title>Turbo-electric drives are widely used</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247751360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-electric" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-electric</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Turbo-electric drives are common and the USN has a few according to the above linked wiki article.</p><p>What appears to be new here (according to tfa) is that the turbines can be mechanically coupled thru a gearbox to the propellers for high speed maneuvers. That isn't so common, usually the only thing connected to the propellers (for ships) or wheels (for locomotives) is the electric motor.  I guess that is what makes the ship similar to a Prius although I don't suppose the ship has batteries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-electric [ wikipedia.org ] Turbo-electric drives are common and the USN has a few according to the above linked wiki article.What appears to be new here ( according to tfa ) is that the turbines can be mechanically coupled thru a gearbox to the propellers for high speed maneuvers .
That is n't so common , usually the only thing connected to the propellers ( for ships ) or wheels ( for locomotives ) is the electric motor .
I guess that is what makes the ship similar to a Prius although I do n't suppose the ship has batteries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-electric [wikipedia.org]Turbo-electric drives are common and the USN has a few according to the above linked wiki article.What appears to be new here (according to tfa) is that the turbines can be mechanically coupled thru a gearbox to the propellers for high speed maneuvers.
That isn't so common, usually the only thing connected to the propellers (for ships) or wheels (for locomotives) is the electric motor.
I guess that is what makes the ship similar to a Prius although I don't suppose the ship has batteries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28723747</id>
	<title>How come nobody has thought of...</title>
	<author>grepya</author>
	<datestamp>1247743320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... wind powered ships. Maybe we could plant a huge wind turbine on the ship's deck and use the electricity thus generated to power the motors. I mean... there's lots of wind over the oceans. Somebody should definitely look at using wind to propel the ships.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... wind powered ships .
Maybe we could plant a huge wind turbine on the ship 's deck and use the electricity thus generated to power the motors .
I mean... there 's lots of wind over the oceans .
Somebody should definitely look at using wind to propel the ships .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>... wind powered ships.
Maybe we could plant a huge wind turbine on the ship's deck and use the electricity thus generated to power the motors.
I mean... there's lots of wind over the oceans.
Somebody should definitely look at using wind to propel the ships.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715113</id>
	<title>2 questions?</title>
	<author>KurtisKiesel</author>
	<datestamp>1247751180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can it pull up next to a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier and recharge?

33 million... how much does a small reactor cost in comparison?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can it pull up next to a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier and recharge ?
33 million... how much does a small reactor cost in comparison ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can it pull up next to a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier and recharge?
33 million... how much does a small reactor cost in comparison?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715135</id>
	<title>Re:Submarines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247751360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>That has all been supplanted by nuclear submarines, but you have to wonder where battery technology would be today if the Navy had kept using that system.</b><br>Hmm.  You are assuming incorrectly that a nuclear sub doesn't have batteries or an electric motor to make the propeller go roundy-roundy.  How do you think the sub moves if the reactor is offline?  Also, there is a huge difference in how one designs a battery for a ship versus a tiny, dinky little car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That has all been supplanted by nuclear submarines , but you have to wonder where battery technology would be today if the Navy had kept using that system.Hmm .
You are assuming incorrectly that a nuclear sub does n't have batteries or an electric motor to make the propeller go roundy-roundy .
How do you think the sub moves if the reactor is offline ?
Also , there is a huge difference in how one designs a battery for a ship versus a tiny , dinky little car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That has all been supplanted by nuclear submarines, but you have to wonder where battery technology would be today if the Navy had kept using that system.Hmm.
You are assuming incorrectly that a nuclear sub doesn't have batteries or an electric motor to make the propeller go roundy-roundy.
How do you think the sub moves if the reactor is offline?
Also, there is a huge difference in how one designs a battery for a ship versus a tiny, dinky little car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28733787</id>
	<title>Re:Only?</title>
	<author>ahabswhale</author>
	<datestamp>1247862780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$33 million is great but there are no such things as on-time and on-budget DoD projects.  They ALWAYS go over budget, so by the time this thing is done it will cost at least 10x that amount.</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 33 million is great but there are no such things as on-time and on-budget DoD projects .
They ALWAYS go over budget , so by the time this thing is done it will cost at least 10x that amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$33 million is great but there are no such things as on-time and on-budget DoD projects.
They ALWAYS go over budget, so by the time this thing is done it will cost at least 10x that amount.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715201</id>
	<title>Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1247751720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can someone explain the economic benefit of this move?</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, the primary benefit is that we can call this a Class 1 Naval Drive, thus affirming our fantasies about one day living like Commander Jameson.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone explain the economic benefit of this move ? Well , the primary benefit is that we can call this a Class 1 Naval Drive , thus affirming our fantasies about one day living like Commander Jameson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone explain the economic benefit of this move?Well, the primary benefit is that we can call this a Class 1 Naval Drive, thus affirming our fantasies about one day living like Commander Jameson.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714957</id>
	<title>Obamacare about to crush NYC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/news/regionalnews/dem\_health\_rx\_a\_poion\_pill\_in\_ny\_179525.htm" title="nypost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/news/regionalnews/dem\_health\_rx\_a\_poion\_pill\_in\_ny\_179525.htm</a> [nypost.com]</p><p>My favorite line from the article:</p><p>"New York would become the third-most-hostile place for top earners to live under the proposed new surtaxes supported by House Democrats and championed by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)."</p><p>LOL, your own Congressman goes up to Capitol Hill and stabs you in the back!  Why on earth do you keep voting for that pathetic, ashy-faced nigger who slaps you with job-crushing taxes and then turns around and "forgets" to pay taxes on foreign rental properties that he owns?  Do your research, you lazy slobs!  It's no wonder you're getting taxed until your eyes are popping out, since you always seem to pull the lever for the same guy regardless of what a pile of shit he is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/news/regionalnews/dem \ _health \ _rx \ _a \ _poion \ _pill \ _in \ _ny \ _179525.htm [ nypost.com ] My favorite line from the article : " New York would become the third-most-hostile place for top earners to live under the proposed new surtaxes supported by House Democrats and championed by Rep. Charles Rangel ( D-NY ) .
" LOL , your own Congressman goes up to Capitol Hill and stabs you in the back !
Why on earth do you keep voting for that pathetic , ashy-faced nigger who slaps you with job-crushing taxes and then turns around and " forgets " to pay taxes on foreign rental properties that he owns ?
Do your research , you lazy slobs !
It 's no wonder you 're getting taxed until your eyes are popping out , since you always seem to pull the lever for the same guy regardless of what a pile of shit he is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/news/regionalnews/dem\_health\_rx\_a\_poion\_pill\_in\_ny\_179525.htm [nypost.com]My favorite line from the article:"New York would become the third-most-hostile place for top earners to live under the proposed new surtaxes supported by House Democrats and championed by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY).
"LOL, your own Congressman goes up to Capitol Hill and stabs you in the back!
Why on earth do you keep voting for that pathetic, ashy-faced nigger who slaps you with job-crushing taxes and then turns around and "forgets" to pay taxes on foreign rental properties that he owns?
Do your research, you lazy slobs!
It's no wonder you're getting taxed until your eyes are popping out, since you always seem to pull the lever for the same guy regardless of what a pile of shit he is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715965</id>
	<title>Re:Too bad we don't have this already</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1247755800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where are these nuclear wessels?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are these nuclear wessels ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are these nuclear wessels?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717647</id>
	<title>Re:Back when I was a kid...</title>
	<author>Kagura</author>
	<datestamp>1247762580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous\_Waters" title="wikipedia.org">Dangerous Waters</a> [wikipedia.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dangerous Waters [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dangerous Waters [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715013</id>
	<title>Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.</title>
	<author>Broken scope</author>
	<datestamp>1247750280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot per ship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot per ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot per ship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715355</id>
	<title>Too bad we don't have this already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, wait.  We do.  Why are we even talking about building hybrids when the Navy already has more than 80 electrics in the form of nuclear powered vessels?  With more than 5500 reactor years without an accident, haven't we proved that it is safe?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , wait .
We do .
Why are we even talking about building hybrids when the Navy already has more than 80 electrics in the form of nuclear powered vessels ?
With more than 5500 reactor years without an accident , have n't we proved that it is safe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, wait.
We do.
Why are we even talking about building hybrids when the Navy already has more than 80 electrics in the form of nuclear powered vessels?
With more than 5500 reactor years without an accident, haven't we proved that it is safe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715383</id>
	<title>duh! what a silly project!</title>
	<author>bazorg</author>
	<datestamp>1247752680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't they just use the energy from the waves to generate electricity? it would be just like a bycicle with a dynamo and an electric motor!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they just use the energy from the waves to generate electricity ?
it would be just like a bycicle with a dynamo and an electric motor !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they just use the energy from the waves to generate electricity?
it would be just like a bycicle with a dynamo and an electric motor!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715083</id>
	<title>Re:Not exactly a new idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247751000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Queen Mary 2 anyone?</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS\_Queen\_Mary\_2#Power\_plant\_and\_propulsion\_system</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Queen Mary 2 anyone ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS \ _Queen \ _Mary \ _2 # Power \ _plant \ _and \ _propulsion \ _system</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Queen Mary 2 anyone?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS\_Queen\_Mary\_2#Power\_plant\_and\_propulsion\_system</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715643</id>
	<title>Re:Too bad we don't have this already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247754360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With more than 5500 reactor years without an accident</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS\_Thresher\_(SSN-593)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS\_Thresher\_(SSN-593)</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS\_Scorpion\_(SSN-589)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS\_Scorpion\_(SSN-589)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With more than 5500 reactor years without an accident http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS \ _Thresher \ _ ( SSN-593 ) [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS \ _Scorpion \ _ ( SSN-589 ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With more than 5500 reactor years without an accident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS\_Thresher\_(SSN-593) [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS\_Scorpion\_(SSN-589) [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716623</id>
	<title>Re:Not exactly a new idea</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1247758740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Frankly, I'm surprised that this research hadn't already been started, albeit to reduce dependence of foreign oil rather than out of any concern for the environment given the stance of the Bush Presidency on such matters.</i></p><p>I know the <a href="http://www.syntroleum.com/pr\_individualpressrelease.aspx?NewsID=943175" title="syntroleum.com">US Airforce is acutely aware</a> [syntroleum.com] of the foreign oil problem.</p><p>They have been working with a company called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntroleum" title="wikipedia.org">Syntroleum</a> [wikipedia.org] to use the old German process of converting coal and natural gas to fuel they can put in B52 bombers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I 'm surprised that this research had n't already been started , albeit to reduce dependence of foreign oil rather than out of any concern for the environment given the stance of the Bush Presidency on such matters.I know the US Airforce is acutely aware [ syntroleum.com ] of the foreign oil problem.They have been working with a company called Syntroleum [ wikipedia.org ] to use the old German process of converting coal and natural gas to fuel they can put in B52 bombers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I'm surprised that this research hadn't already been started, albeit to reduce dependence of foreign oil rather than out of any concern for the environment given the stance of the Bush Presidency on such matters.I know the US Airforce is acutely aware [syntroleum.com] of the foreign oil problem.They have been working with a company called Syntroleum [wikipedia.org] to use the old German process of converting coal and natural gas to fuel they can put in B52 bombers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715747</id>
	<title>Proof of concept?????</title>
	<author>ColdBoot</author>
	<datestamp>1247754840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cruise ship industry has been doing this for years!!!! What proof of concept is necessary?  This is an industry best practice and this $33M is wasted money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cruise ship industry has been doing this for years ! ! ! !
What proof of concept is necessary ?
This is an industry best practice and this $ 33M is wasted money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cruise ship industry has been doing this for years!!!!
What proof of concept is necessary?
This is an industry best practice and this $33M is wasted money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717401</id>
	<title>Re:Regenerative Braking</title>
	<author>Gibbs-Duhem</author>
	<datestamp>1247761620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you put a load on the propellers, it should act in the same way as a windmill and extract kinetic energy from the water by increasing drag...</p><p>Just requires *extremely* well planned stops!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you put a load on the propellers , it should act in the same way as a windmill and extract kinetic energy from the water by increasing drag...Just requires * extremely * well planned stops !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you put a load on the propellers, it should act in the same way as a windmill and extract kinetic energy from the water by increasing drag...Just requires *extremely* well planned stops!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715031</id>
	<title>Re:What would happen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247750520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same thing that happens when 30 tons of oil bursts open on the high seas?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing that happens when 30 tons of oil bursts open on the high seas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing that happens when 30 tons of oil bursts open on the high seas?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715269</id>
	<title>Re:Submarines</title>
	<author>SirCowMan</author>
	<datestamp>1247751960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Canada at one time experimented with a 'hybrid' (a misnomer in the marine industry, as diesel-electric arrangements and all-electric ships aren't really rare) nuclear submarine plant. A small, 1.5MW or so reactor would be used to recharge the batteries while submerged, extending dive times - though the primary power source remained diesel engines through snorkel or surfaced.

Another interesting submarine propulsion system are the peroxide based boats, which actually ran the diesels while submerged &amp; developed the oxygen for combustion chemically.

That said, I'm not entirely sure what the Navy is aiming for here, certainly the article is way to sparse to draw conclusions. There are some issues with current diesel-electric drives, most importantly efficiencies in energy transferral and conversions. An extremely promising technology is superconducting electric drives, and may be more of what the article is referencing. As far as electric motors being used for propulsion "boosts" to a mechanical shaft, we have them. Shaft generators can be used to perform this function or for generating service power for the ship (as conditions require). Such flexible electrical systems have been developed for the cruise ship industry (Siemen's has an excellent presentation thereof I could probably find if anyone is interested).

My suspicion then might be that it's not new technology, but rather money for the testing, integration, and installation plans for a flexible system which will bring the vessels closer to being an all-electric-ship; as the systems will have to be fully scrutinized for the realities of naval vessel equipment: minimal noise, blast-proofing, electromagnetic emissions, etc. ~ not trivial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada at one time experimented with a 'hybrid ' ( a misnomer in the marine industry , as diesel-electric arrangements and all-electric ships are n't really rare ) nuclear submarine plant .
A small , 1.5MW or so reactor would be used to recharge the batteries while submerged , extending dive times - though the primary power source remained diesel engines through snorkel or surfaced .
Another interesting submarine propulsion system are the peroxide based boats , which actually ran the diesels while submerged &amp; developed the oxygen for combustion chemically .
That said , I 'm not entirely sure what the Navy is aiming for here , certainly the article is way to sparse to draw conclusions .
There are some issues with current diesel-electric drives , most importantly efficiencies in energy transferral and conversions .
An extremely promising technology is superconducting electric drives , and may be more of what the article is referencing .
As far as electric motors being used for propulsion " boosts " to a mechanical shaft , we have them .
Shaft generators can be used to perform this function or for generating service power for the ship ( as conditions require ) .
Such flexible electrical systems have been developed for the cruise ship industry ( Siemen 's has an excellent presentation thereof I could probably find if anyone is interested ) .
My suspicion then might be that it 's not new technology , but rather money for the testing , integration , and installation plans for a flexible system which will bring the vessels closer to being an all-electric-ship ; as the systems will have to be fully scrutinized for the realities of naval vessel equipment : minimal noise , blast-proofing , electromagnetic emissions , etc .
~ not trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada at one time experimented with a 'hybrid' (a misnomer in the marine industry, as diesel-electric arrangements and all-electric ships aren't really rare) nuclear submarine plant.
A small, 1.5MW or so reactor would be used to recharge the batteries while submerged, extending dive times - though the primary power source remained diesel engines through snorkel or surfaced.
Another interesting submarine propulsion system are the peroxide based boats, which actually ran the diesels while submerged &amp; developed the oxygen for combustion chemically.
That said, I'm not entirely sure what the Navy is aiming for here, certainly the article is way to sparse to draw conclusions.
There are some issues with current diesel-electric drives, most importantly efficiencies in energy transferral and conversions.
An extremely promising technology is superconducting electric drives, and may be more of what the article is referencing.
As far as electric motors being used for propulsion "boosts" to a mechanical shaft, we have them.
Shaft generators can be used to perform this function or for generating service power for the ship (as conditions require).
Such flexible electrical systems have been developed for the cruise ship industry (Siemen's has an excellent presentation thereof I could probably find if anyone is interested).
My suspicion then might be that it's not new technology, but rather money for the testing, integration, and installation plans for a flexible system which will bring the vessels closer to being an all-electric-ship; as the systems will have to be fully scrutinized for the realities of naval vessel equipment: minimal noise, blast-proofing, electromagnetic emissions, etc.
~ not trivial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28718821</id>
	<title>Re:Regenerative Braking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247766600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you stick a paddle wheel out and connect it to a generator<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you stick a paddle wheel out and connect it to a generator : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you stick a paddle wheel out and connect it to a generator :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715045</id>
	<title>Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.</title>
	<author>Shinobi</author>
	<datestamp>1247750640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Installation of hybrid drivetrain is a onetime cost. The fuel savings go on for the entire time it is in service.</p><p>Other benefits are: Less logistics required to supply a fleet group with fuel during operations. And the logistics in itself uses a fair amount of fuel too. So you've been looking at this with a rather narrow perspective, and very short-term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Installation of hybrid drivetrain is a onetime cost .
The fuel savings go on for the entire time it is in service.Other benefits are : Less logistics required to supply a fleet group with fuel during operations .
And the logistics in itself uses a fair amount of fuel too .
So you 've been looking at this with a rather narrow perspective , and very short-term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Installation of hybrid drivetrain is a onetime cost.
The fuel savings go on for the entire time it is in service.Other benefits are: Less logistics required to supply a fleet group with fuel during operations.
And the logistics in itself uses a fair amount of fuel too.
So you've been looking at this with a rather narrow perspective, and very short-term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717271</id>
	<title>Re:Too bad we don't have this already</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1247761020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Oh, wait. We do. Why are we even talking about building hybrids when the Navy already has more than 80 electrics in the form of nuclear powered vessels?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because all but two of those nuclear powered submarines (<i>Tulibee</i> and <i>Glenard P. Lipscomb</i>) are direct drive - the turbines are directly geared to the propeller shaft.  In the balance, electric propulsion was an only used for limited duration emergency backup.  Not really a hybrid system at all.  (We could have used it as a hybrid system, but we didn't for a variety of reasons.)<br>
&nbsp; <br>In addition, there are potentially a number of different arrangements of components and detail differences in implementation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , wait .
We do .
Why are we even talking about building hybrids when the Navy already has more than 80 electrics in the form of nuclear powered vessels ? Because all but two of those nuclear powered submarines ( Tulibee and Glenard P. Lipscomb ) are direct drive - the turbines are directly geared to the propeller shaft .
In the balance , electric propulsion was an only used for limited duration emergency backup .
Not really a hybrid system at all .
( We could have used it as a hybrid system , but we did n't for a variety of reasons .
)   In addition , there are potentially a number of different arrangements of components and detail differences in implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, wait.
We do.
Why are we even talking about building hybrids when the Navy already has more than 80 electrics in the form of nuclear powered vessels?Because all but two of those nuclear powered submarines (Tulibee and Glenard P. Lipscomb) are direct drive - the turbines are directly geared to the propeller shaft.
In the balance, electric propulsion was an only used for limited duration emergency backup.
Not really a hybrid system at all.
(We could have used it as a hybrid system, but we didn't for a variety of reasons.
)
  In addition, there are potentially a number of different arrangements of components and detail differences in implementation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28732921</id>
	<title>Big gears</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1247858520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
One of the real reasons behind this is that the gear train to connect a gas turbine to a propeller is a huge pain.  Turbine shaft speeds are around 20,000 RPM, and this has to be stepped down to 200 RPM or so for the propeller.  There's a clutch and reversing gear, too.  Often the gearbox is bigger than the engine.
</p><p>Reverse with a turbine is a headache.  Some marine diesels are built so they can run in either direction, but that's not an option with a turbine.  So there's either a really big gearshift, or a second powerplant for reverse operation.
</p><p>
Thus, there's ongoing interest in going to electric transmission, like a locomotive.
It's
not a new idea; an electric transmission was tried on a ship before WWII.  But it works
much better with modern power semiconductors. Locomotives <a href="http://www.getransportation.com/na/en/ac4400.html" title="getransportation.com">do this now.</a> [getransportation.com] Modern locomotives use AC to DC to variable frequency polyphase AC conversion to drive the motors. This takes large switching power supplies, using very large semiconductors.  It's a solved problem; GE locomotives have been doing this for ten years now, and their competitors now have comparable technology.  Moving the technology to ships is an obvious move at this point.
</p><p>
There's also a Navy effort to develop a permanent magnet motor (!) big enough for shipboard propulsion.  This gets rid of the field coils and increases efficiency.  I'm not sure how that's coming along.
</p><p>
This is routine progress being made in heavy machinery.  The combination of electronics and really big gears and motors can do things neither can do alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the real reasons behind this is that the gear train to connect a gas turbine to a propeller is a huge pain .
Turbine shaft speeds are around 20,000 RPM , and this has to be stepped down to 200 RPM or so for the propeller .
There 's a clutch and reversing gear , too .
Often the gearbox is bigger than the engine .
Reverse with a turbine is a headache .
Some marine diesels are built so they can run in either direction , but that 's not an option with a turbine .
So there 's either a really big gearshift , or a second powerplant for reverse operation .
Thus , there 's ongoing interest in going to electric transmission , like a locomotive .
It 's not a new idea ; an electric transmission was tried on a ship before WWII .
But it works much better with modern power semiconductors .
Locomotives do this now .
[ getransportation.com ] Modern locomotives use AC to DC to variable frequency polyphase AC conversion to drive the motors .
This takes large switching power supplies , using very large semiconductors .
It 's a solved problem ; GE locomotives have been doing this for ten years now , and their competitors now have comparable technology .
Moving the technology to ships is an obvious move at this point .
There 's also a Navy effort to develop a permanent magnet motor ( !
) big enough for shipboard propulsion .
This gets rid of the field coils and increases efficiency .
I 'm not sure how that 's coming along .
This is routine progress being made in heavy machinery .
The combination of electronics and really big gears and motors can do things neither can do alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
One of the real reasons behind this is that the gear train to connect a gas turbine to a propeller is a huge pain.
Turbine shaft speeds are around 20,000 RPM, and this has to be stepped down to 200 RPM or so for the propeller.
There's a clutch and reversing gear, too.
Often the gearbox is bigger than the engine.
Reverse with a turbine is a headache.
Some marine diesels are built so they can run in either direction, but that's not an option with a turbine.
So there's either a really big gearshift, or a second powerplant for reverse operation.
Thus, there's ongoing interest in going to electric transmission, like a locomotive.
It's
not a new idea; an electric transmission was tried on a ship before WWII.
But it works
much better with modern power semiconductors.
Locomotives do this now.
[getransportation.com] Modern locomotives use AC to DC to variable frequency polyphase AC conversion to drive the motors.
This takes large switching power supplies, using very large semiconductors.
It's a solved problem; GE locomotives have been doing this for ten years now, and their competitors now have comparable technology.
Moving the technology to ships is an obvious move at this point.
There's also a Navy effort to develop a permanent magnet motor (!
) big enough for shipboard propulsion.
This gets rid of the field coils and increases efficiency.
I'm not sure how that's coming along.
This is routine progress being made in heavy machinery.
The combination of electronics and really big gears and motors can do things neither can do alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28733709</id>
	<title>Re:Regenerative Braking</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1247862420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you? Regenerative braking makes sense only when you're stopping and starting a lot. There aren't too many traffic lights in the ocean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you ?
Regenerative braking makes sense only when you 're stopping and starting a lot .
There are n't too many traffic lights in the ocean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you?
Regenerative braking makes sense only when you're stopping and starting a lot.
There aren't too many traffic lights in the ocean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716271</id>
	<title>Arrrrr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247757180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>arrrrr me blundering fuck-buckets, behold ye "hybrid of the high sea" arrr ye pirates be unstoppable see, 33 million arrr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>arrrrr me blundering fuck-buckets , behold ye " hybrid of the high sea " arrr ye pirates be unstoppable see , 33 million arrr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>arrrrr me blundering fuck-buckets, behold ye "hybrid of the high sea" arrr ye pirates be unstoppable see, 33 million arrr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716001</id>
	<title>Re:Too bad we don't have this already</title>
	<author>marsdominion</author>
	<datestamp>1247755980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The loss of both these subs, while tragic, does not change the facts.  The point is that neither of these ships were lost due to their reactors, but to other events.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The loss of both these subs , while tragic , does not change the facts .
The point is that neither of these ships were lost due to their reactors , but to other events .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The loss of both these subs, while tragic, does not change the facts.
The point is that neither of these ships were lost due to their reactors, but to other events.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716389</id>
	<title>Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247757720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does "eat it is self" mean?

</p><p>What does "pay for it is self" mean?

</p><p> <a href="http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html" title="uwaterloo.ca" rel="nofollow">Please re-learn 2nd grade grammar.</a> [uwaterloo.ca]

</p><p>Thanks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does " eat it is self " mean ?
What does " pay for it is self " mean ?
Please re-learn 2nd grade grammar .
[ uwaterloo.ca ] Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does "eat it is self" mean?
What does "pay for it is self" mean?
Please re-learn 2nd grade grammar.
[uwaterloo.ca]

Thanks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715629</id>
	<title>Re:What would happen...</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1247754240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, who ever heard of warships with explosives on board? I'm sure that scenario never occurred to anyone in the Navy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , who ever heard of warships with explosives on board ?
I 'm sure that scenario never occurred to anyone in the Navy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, who ever heard of warships with explosives on board?
I'm sure that scenario never occurred to anyone in the Navy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715665</id>
	<title>different type of hybrid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247754480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the Navy means by 'hybrid' is not exactly what you'd expect. TFA is light on details, but I suspect the idea is to use the electrical generators on the ship for low-speed propulsion, instead of having to run the main gas turbine engines at 10\% load, at which they're very inefficient. There'll be no batteries involved, and no regenerative braking.</p><p>Many warships already have two plants capable of driving the propellers. Not so much the USN, but European navies often use gas turbines to provide high speeds (30+ knots), plus a set of diesels for lower speeds (up to 20 kt).</p><p>For new ships, electrical propulsion is being looked into for the same reason: you can switch generators on and off so you always have them running at their most efficient power setting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the Navy means by 'hybrid ' is not exactly what you 'd expect .
TFA is light on details , but I suspect the idea is to use the electrical generators on the ship for low-speed propulsion , instead of having to run the main gas turbine engines at 10 \ % load , at which they 're very inefficient .
There 'll be no batteries involved , and no regenerative braking.Many warships already have two plants capable of driving the propellers .
Not so much the USN , but European navies often use gas turbines to provide high speeds ( 30 + knots ) , plus a set of diesels for lower speeds ( up to 20 kt ) .For new ships , electrical propulsion is being looked into for the same reason : you can switch generators on and off so you always have them running at their most efficient power setting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the Navy means by 'hybrid' is not exactly what you'd expect.
TFA is light on details, but I suspect the idea is to use the electrical generators on the ship for low-speed propulsion, instead of having to run the main gas turbine engines at 10\% load, at which they're very inefficient.
There'll be no batteries involved, and no regenerative braking.Many warships already have two plants capable of driving the propellers.
Not so much the USN, but European navies often use gas turbines to provide high speeds (30+ knots), plus a set of diesels for lower speeds (up to 20 kt).For new ships, electrical propulsion is being looked into for the same reason: you can switch generators on and off so you always have them running at their most efficient power setting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715381</id>
	<title>Re:What would happen...</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1247752680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably similar to what happens when one of the Soviet-era sodium-cooled nuclear submarine gets hit... really a torpedo hit that breaches the hull is going to be a Bad Day no matter what.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably similar to what happens when one of the Soviet-era sodium-cooled nuclear submarine gets hit... really a torpedo hit that breaches the hull is going to be a Bad Day no matter what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably similar to what happens when one of the Soviet-era sodium-cooled nuclear submarine gets hit... really a torpedo hit that breaches the hull is going to be a Bad Day no matter what.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715409</id>
	<title>Re:What would happen...</title>
	<author>Locklin</author>
	<datestamp>1247752800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have to generate power continuously for ship operations, radar, sonar, etc. Sounds like this just uses the generators for slow speed manoeuvres rather than firing up the drive engines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have to generate power continuously for ship operations , radar , sonar , etc .
Sounds like this just uses the generators for slow speed manoeuvres rather than firing up the drive engines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have to generate power continuously for ship operations, radar, sonar, etc.
Sounds like this just uses the generators for slow speed manoeuvres rather than firing up the drive engines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28718217</id>
	<title>So when can we buy a "road-going DDG 51?"</title>
	<author>jbdigriz</author>
	<datestamp>1247764620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, w/o the guns and missiles. Rats.</p><p>Seriously, Detroit could have mass-produced an automotive turbine-electric 40 years ago. Dr. Porsche was designing them at least by the '20s.</p><p>Next, while there are still tertiary wastewater treatment plants which just burn off the methane they produce,  we will read about some 15 yo whiz kid getting kudos, grants and carbon credits for his "why has no one thought of that?" biomass digester for producing fuel gasses Oh, wait...</p><p>Now get off my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , w/o the guns and missiles .
Rats.Seriously , Detroit could have mass-produced an automotive turbine-electric 40 years ago .
Dr. Porsche was designing them at least by the '20s.Next , while there are still tertiary wastewater treatment plants which just burn off the methane they produce , we will read about some 15 yo whiz kid getting kudos , grants and carbon credits for his " why has no one thought of that ?
" biomass digester for producing fuel gasses Oh , wait...Now get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, w/o the guns and missiles.
Rats.Seriously, Detroit could have mass-produced an automotive turbine-electric 40 years ago.
Dr. Porsche was designing them at least by the '20s.Next, while there are still tertiary wastewater treatment plants which just burn off the methane they produce,  we will read about some 15 yo whiz kid getting kudos, grants and carbon credits for his "why has no one thought of that?
" biomass digester for producing fuel gasses Oh, wait...Now get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717423</id>
	<title>Yeah but...</title>
	<author>BurzumNazgul</author>
	<datestamp>1247761680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...can it fire torpedoes while cloaked?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...can it fire torpedoes while cloaked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...can it fire torpedoes while cloaked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715081</id>
	<title>Re:So that's where our tax dollars go.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247750940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, here you go.<ul>
<li>Cost of development: 17.1 million dollars.</li><li>Cost of oil (per year saved, on your cost): 1.2 million dollars</li><li>Cost of oil (per year saved, 35 year service): 42 million dollars</li><li>Number of destroyers the Navy has deployed now: 60</li><li>Rough estimate of savings when all are outfitted over time in the future: 2.1 billion dollars</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , here you go .
Cost of development : 17.1 million dollars.Cost of oil ( per year saved , on your cost ) : 1.2 million dollarsCost of oil ( per year saved , 35 year service ) : 42 million dollarsNumber of destroyers the Navy has deployed now : 60Rough estimate of savings when all are outfitted over time in the future : 2.1 billion dollars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, here you go.
Cost of development: 17.1 million dollars.Cost of oil (per year saved, on your cost): 1.2 million dollarsCost of oil (per year saved, 35 year service): 42 million dollarsNumber of destroyers the Navy has deployed now: 60Rough estimate of savings when all are outfitted over time in the future: 2.1 billion dollars</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716183</id>
	<title>Re:Too bad we don't have this already</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247756700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, hybrid technology is useful no matter what your fuel is. I don't know how adjustable PWMs are, but most reactors have a non-negligible up/down time. Excess power can be stored in batteries and used for over-power... It's only a matter of time before we have subs with blue-green lasers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , hybrid technology is useful no matter what your fuel is .
I do n't know how adjustable PWMs are , but most reactors have a non-negligible up/down time .
Excess power can be stored in batteries and used for over-power... It 's only a matter of time before we have subs with blue-green lasers : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, hybrid technology is useful no matter what your fuel is.
I don't know how adjustable PWMs are, but most reactors have a non-negligible up/down time.
Excess power can be stored in batteries and used for over-power... It's only a matter of time before we have subs with blue-green lasers :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28720701</id>
	<title>Re:Nice thing.</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1247773560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe way.</p></div><p>Where is the electric power going to come from in this system?  A nuclear reactor?  Converted and stored combustion energy?  The article doesn't seem to say.  </p><p>They say this will reduce fuel use, but will it really save money?  The energy needs to come from somewhere.  Unless you are getting free energy from solar, regenerative braking, or stored excess energy, it seems like using electric is just wasting energy through battery conversion losses and such.   </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe way.Where is the electric power going to come from in this system ?
A nuclear reactor ?
Converted and stored combustion energy ?
The article does n't seem to say .
They say this will reduce fuel use , but will it really save money ?
The energy needs to come from somewhere .
Unless you are getting free energy from solar , regenerative braking , or stored excess energy , it seems like using electric is just wasting energy through battery conversion losses and such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe way.Where is the electric power going to come from in this system?
A nuclear reactor?
Converted and stored combustion energy?
The article doesn't seem to say.
They say this will reduce fuel use, but will it really save money?
The energy needs to come from somewhere.
Unless you are getting free energy from solar, regenerative braking, or stored excess energy, it seems like using electric is just wasting energy through battery conversion losses and such.   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715349</id>
	<title>technical and fiunancial details.</title>
	<author>auric\_dude</author>
	<datestamp>1247752440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The general view of DDG-51s of this project  <p>http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/07/good-reason-for-flight-iii-burkes.html and the reasons for this work.</p><p> A defence Industry view</p><p>http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/327M-to-General-Atomics-for-DDG-51-Propulsion-System-Prototype-05598/#more-5598</p><p> A general Atomics view</p><p>http://www.ga.com/news.php?read=1&amp;id=262</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The general view of DDG-51s of this project http : //www.informationdissemination.net/2009/07/good-reason-for-flight-iii-burkes.html and the reasons for this work .
A defence Industry viewhttp : //www.defenseindustrydaily.com/327M-to-General-Atomics-for-DDG-51-Propulsion-System-Prototype-05598/ # more-5598 A general Atomics viewhttp : //www.ga.com/news.php ? read = 1&amp;id = 262</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The general view of DDG-51s of this project  http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/07/good-reason-for-flight-iii-burkes.html and the reasons for this work.
A defence Industry viewhttp://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/327M-to-General-Atomics-for-DDG-51-Propulsion-System-Prototype-05598/#more-5598 A general Atomics viewhttp://www.ga.com/news.php?read=1&amp;id=262</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715067</id>
	<title>Only?</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1247750880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only $33 million? For a military contract? Really? Not to be a smartass, but that seems insanely cheap for what they're asking for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only $ 33 million ?
For a military contract ?
Really ? Not to be a smartass , but that seems insanely cheap for what they 're asking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only $33 million?
For a military contract?
Really? Not to be a smartass, but that seems insanely cheap for what they're asking for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715371</id>
	<title>Diesel electric?</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1247752620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this system any different than the diesel-electric systems that have been used on locomotives for decades?</p><p>I understand that batteries will be used- The old diesel-electric submarines used that system before WWII.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this system any different than the diesel-electric systems that have been used on locomotives for decades ? I understand that batteries will be used- The old diesel-electric submarines used that system before WWII.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this system any different than the diesel-electric systems that have been used on locomotives for decades?I understand that batteries will be used- The old diesel-electric submarines used that system before WWII.-b</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715985</id>
	<title>Re:Not exactly a new idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247755920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially in the area of submarines, these principles are still used all over the world, since you just can't use a combustion engine underwater. Also, running on batteries is just simply more silent than any type of engine, a major advantage in submarine warfare. Take a look at the german U212 class of attack submaries for an innovative hydrogen fuel cell / diesel hybrid.</p><p>For surface vessels this was never an issue though, so there wasn't any need to develop anything new, but the basic technology is there. For submarines, these kinds of engines give you a significant tactical advantage, but the "only" advantage you have for surface vessels is increased efficiency for higher cost, so it's simply a monetary trade off (if you disregard the supply issues). Also, the development cycles for military hardware are really long, especially in the navy. However, I guess that reducing the military's dependence on foreign oil and gas supplies is a major goal in the mid to long term, so I expect to see much more of these initiatives in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially in the area of submarines , these principles are still used all over the world , since you just ca n't use a combustion engine underwater .
Also , running on batteries is just simply more silent than any type of engine , a major advantage in submarine warfare .
Take a look at the german U212 class of attack submaries for an innovative hydrogen fuel cell / diesel hybrid.For surface vessels this was never an issue though , so there was n't any need to develop anything new , but the basic technology is there .
For submarines , these kinds of engines give you a significant tactical advantage , but the " only " advantage you have for surface vessels is increased efficiency for higher cost , so it 's simply a monetary trade off ( if you disregard the supply issues ) .
Also , the development cycles for military hardware are really long , especially in the navy .
However , I guess that reducing the military 's dependence on foreign oil and gas supplies is a major goal in the mid to long term , so I expect to see much more of these initiatives in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially in the area of submarines, these principles are still used all over the world, since you just can't use a combustion engine underwater.
Also, running on batteries is just simply more silent than any type of engine, a major advantage in submarine warfare.
Take a look at the german U212 class of attack submaries for an innovative hydrogen fuel cell / diesel hybrid.For surface vessels this was never an issue though, so there wasn't any need to develop anything new, but the basic technology is there.
For submarines, these kinds of engines give you a significant tactical advantage, but the "only" advantage you have for surface vessels is increased efficiency for higher cost, so it's simply a monetary trade off (if you disregard the supply issues).
Also, the development cycles for military hardware are really long, especially in the navy.
However, I guess that reducing the military's dependence on foreign oil and gas supplies is a major goal in the mid to long term, so I expect to see much more of these initiatives in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715325</id>
	<title>Back when I was a kid...</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1247752260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I used to play this submarine game.  It presented dials and knobs and switches and levers.  There were notifications and warnings and other messages.  There was a periscope.  But one thing that I recall in the game was running electric when submerged and diesel when surfaced and the diesel charged the batteries.  Makes me wonder a bit how "new" this naval technology is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I used to play this submarine game .
It presented dials and knobs and switches and levers .
There were notifications and warnings and other messages .
There was a periscope .
But one thing that I recall in the game was running electric when submerged and diesel when surfaced and the diesel charged the batteries .
Makes me wonder a bit how " new " this naval technology is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I used to play this submarine game.
It presented dials and knobs and switches and levers.
There were notifications and warnings and other messages.
There was a periscope.
But one thing that I recall in the game was running electric when submerged and diesel when surfaced and the diesel charged the batteries.
Makes me wonder a bit how "new" this naval technology is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715043</id>
	<title>liars, touts &amp; shills, oh my</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247750580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>never a better time for robbIE to turn off his patentdead PostBlock censorship devise, as opposed to cranking it up to include subjects that he personally disagrees with/has no concept of, &amp;/or scares him.</p><p>there's nothing new under the fake 'atmosphere'/enlarging sun. also never a better time to consult with your creators. the lights are coming up all over now &amp; again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>never a better time for robbIE to turn off his patentdead PostBlock censorship devise , as opposed to cranking it up to include subjects that he personally disagrees with/has no concept of , &amp;/or scares him.there 's nothing new under the fake 'atmosphere'/enlarging sun .
also never a better time to consult with your creators .
the lights are coming up all over now &amp; again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>never a better time for robbIE to turn off his patentdead PostBlock censorship devise, as opposed to cranking it up to include subjects that he personally disagrees with/has no concept of, &amp;/or scares him.there's nothing new under the fake 'atmosphere'/enlarging sun.
also never a better time to consult with your creators.
the lights are coming up all over now &amp; again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716411</id>
	<title>Re:Turbo-electric drives are widely used</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1247757900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Turbo-electric drives were standard for US battleships of the WWI period, because of fuel economy.  The USN wanted to operate at very long ranges from its bases.  This continued with the battlecruiser designs, of which two were converted to aircraft carriers.  One of those carriers once powered a city (Tacoma, I think) during a power failure.
</p><p>
The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 ended this, since it defined a new "standard displacement" (method of calculating a ship's weight) that didn't include fuel, so to build the biggest warship for the displacement it was much more important to reduce the weight of the engines than to reduce the amount of fuel needed.
</p><p>
In actual service, the turbo-electric drives didn't take shocks well, and so the engines were easy to disable with a torpedo hit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turbo-electric drives were standard for US battleships of the WWI period , because of fuel economy .
The USN wanted to operate at very long ranges from its bases .
This continued with the battlecruiser designs , of which two were converted to aircraft carriers .
One of those carriers once powered a city ( Tacoma , I think ) during a power failure .
The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 ended this , since it defined a new " standard displacement " ( method of calculating a ship 's weight ) that did n't include fuel , so to build the biggest warship for the displacement it was much more important to reduce the weight of the engines than to reduce the amount of fuel needed .
In actual service , the turbo-electric drives did n't take shocks well , and so the engines were easy to disable with a torpedo hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Turbo-electric drives were standard for US battleships of the WWI period, because of fuel economy.
The USN wanted to operate at very long ranges from its bases.
This continued with the battlecruiser designs, of which two were converted to aircraft carriers.
One of those carriers once powered a city (Tacoma, I think) during a power failure.
The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 ended this, since it defined a new "standard displacement" (method of calculating a ship's weight) that didn't include fuel, so to build the biggest warship for the displacement it was much more important to reduce the weight of the engines than to reduce the amount of fuel needed.
In actual service, the turbo-electric drives didn't take shocks well, and so the engines were easy to disable with a torpedo hit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715301</id>
	<title>waste of time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, if you saw what the Navy dumps off the side of the boats when they're a sufficient distance off shore you'd crap yourself.</p><p>If it doesn't float it goes. hybrid motors is laughable given that they'll stil be dumping anything and everything over the side of the boat regardless of how clean the engine runs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , if you saw what the Navy dumps off the side of the boats when they 're a sufficient distance off shore you 'd crap yourself.If it does n't float it goes .
hybrid motors is laughable given that they 'll stil be dumping anything and everything over the side of the boat regardless of how clean the engine runs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, if you saw what the Navy dumps off the side of the boats when they're a sufficient distance off shore you'd crap yourself.If it doesn't float it goes.
hybrid motors is laughable given that they'll stil be dumping anything and everything over the side of the boat regardless of how clean the engine runs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28728643</id>
	<title>Re:Too bad we don't have this already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try again, MP, those were not radiological accidents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try again , MP , those were not radiological accidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try again, MP, those were not radiological accidents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715183</id>
	<title>Floating Prius...oh, I thought is said floating...</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1247751600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Penis.  That's what I get for skimming the summaries. I figured they'd found another one of these:</p><p><a href="http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?Giant\_ice\_penis\_-\_is\_climate\_change\_to\_blame?&amp;in\_article\_id=304450&amp;in\_page\_id=2" title="metro.co.uk">http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?Giant\_ice\_penis\_-\_is\_climate\_change\_to\_blame?&amp;in\_article\_id=304450&amp;in\_page\_id=2</a> [metro.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Penis .
That 's what I get for skimming the summaries .
I figured they 'd found another one of these : http : //www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html ? Giant \ _ice \ _penis \ _- \ _is \ _climate \ _change \ _to \ _blame ? &amp;in \ _article \ _id = 304450&amp;in \ _page \ _id = 2 [ metro.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Penis.
That's what I get for skimming the summaries.
I figured they'd found another one of these:http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?Giant\_ice\_penis\_-\_is\_climate\_change\_to\_blame?&amp;in\_article\_id=304450&amp;in\_page\_id=2 [metro.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714883</id>
	<title>Nice thing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28718023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28733709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28720701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28718821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28726489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28720767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28718729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28733787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28728643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_035245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28744487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28718729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28720767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28726489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28720701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715019
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28728643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28718821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28733709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28719537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28733787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716411
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715733
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28717987
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28718023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28718217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_035245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28714971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28744487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28716623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_035245.28715461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
