<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_17_134207</id>
	<title>OLED Breakthrough Yields 75\% More Efficient Lights</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247840580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.inhabitat.com/" rel="nofollow">Mike</a> writes <i>"Researchers at Korea's Advanced Institute of Science and Technology recently announced a <a href="http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/07/16/oled-breakthrough-yields-75-more-efficient-lights/">breakthrough in OLED technology</a> that reduces the ultra-thin lights' energy consumption by 75\%. The discovery hinges upon a new method of creating '<a href="http://www.olednet.com/focus/focus\_board/focus\_view.asp?idx=284&amp;page=0&amp;group=&amp;field=&amp;words=&amp;mem\_stat=&amp;public\_date=&amp;list\_chk=">surface plasmon enhanced</a>' organic light emitting diodes that boast 1.75 times increased emission rates and double the light intensity."</i> OLEDnet notes: "The finding was published in the April issue of Applied Physics Letters and the June 25 issue of Optics Express. It will be also featured as the research highlight of the August issue of Nature Photonics and Virtual Journal of Ultrafast Science."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mike writes " Researchers at Korea 's Advanced Institute of Science and Technology recently announced a breakthrough in OLED technology that reduces the ultra-thin lights ' energy consumption by 75 \ % .
The discovery hinges upon a new method of creating 'surface plasmon enhanced ' organic light emitting diodes that boast 1.75 times increased emission rates and double the light intensity .
" OLEDnet notes : " The finding was published in the April issue of Applied Physics Letters and the June 25 issue of Optics Express .
It will be also featured as the research highlight of the August issue of Nature Photonics and Virtual Journal of Ultrafast Science .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mike writes "Researchers at Korea's Advanced Institute of Science and Technology recently announced a breakthrough in OLED technology that reduces the ultra-thin lights' energy consumption by 75\%.
The discovery hinges upon a new method of creating 'surface plasmon enhanced' organic light emitting diodes that boast 1.75 times increased emission rates and double the light intensity.
" OLEDnet notes: "The finding was published in the April issue of Applied Physics Letters and the June 25 issue of Optics Express.
It will be also featured as the research highlight of the August issue of Nature Photonics and Virtual Journal of Ultrafast Science.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565</id>
	<title>News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247844540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll be honest, I haven't read much into this, but I hope this isn't like some of those other "eco friendly" solutions which involve, essentially, ecological whaling. As a rule of thumb, a 'green' product should be 'green' to mass produce. -- Any chance anyone here can verify how these can be mass produced?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be honest , I have n't read much into this , but I hope this is n't like some of those other " eco friendly " solutions which involve , essentially , ecological whaling .
As a rule of thumb , a 'green ' product should be 'green ' to mass produce .
-- Any chance anyone here can verify how these can be mass produced ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be honest, I haven't read much into this, but I hope this isn't like some of those other "eco friendly" solutions which involve, essentially, ecological whaling.
As a rule of thumb, a 'green' product should be 'green' to mass produce.
-- Any chance anyone here can verify how these can be mass produced?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730539</id>
	<title>Re:Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs!</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1247848440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could be worse. They could be flashing an ad for Mobil-Dick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could be worse .
They could be flashing an ad for Mobil-Dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could be worse.
They could be flashing an ad for Mobil-Dick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841</id>
	<title>That's all well and good...</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1247845560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
But what *I'd* really like to see is some real advancement in photon-reflective display technology rather than emissive.   Our eyes are evolved to primarily observe light reflected \_OFF\_ of other objects, not photons flung straight into our eyes from some source, and in my experience it is *FAR* easier to observe something for an extended period of time that is being lit by surrounding light than it is to study something that produces its own.   I think it may have something to do with pupil dilation... but I'm not sure.
</p><p>
Now of course, I know there's electronic paper, which I think is awesome, but what I think would be cooler is if A) color were practical, and B) the display could be updated in real-time, at no less than several dozen times per second, making full-fledged animation possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what * I 'd * really like to see is some real advancement in photon-reflective display technology rather than emissive .
Our eyes are evolved to primarily observe light reflected \ _OFF \ _ of other objects , not photons flung straight into our eyes from some source , and in my experience it is * FAR * easier to observe something for an extended period of time that is being lit by surrounding light than it is to study something that produces its own .
I think it may have something to do with pupil dilation... but I 'm not sure .
Now of course , I know there 's electronic paper , which I think is awesome , but what I think would be cooler is if A ) color were practical , and B ) the display could be updated in real-time , at no less than several dozen times per second , making full-fledged animation possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
But what *I'd* really like to see is some real advancement in photon-reflective display technology rather than emissive.
Our eyes are evolved to primarily observe light reflected \_OFF\_ of other objects, not photons flung straight into our eyes from some source, and in my experience it is *FAR* easier to observe something for an extended period of time that is being lit by surrounding light than it is to study something that produces its own.
I think it may have something to do with pupil dilation... but I'm not sure.
Now of course, I know there's electronic paper, which I think is awesome, but what I think would be cooler is if A) color were practical, and B) the display could be updated in real-time, at no less than several dozen times per second, making full-fledged animation possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555</id>
	<title>Sounds good but...</title>
	<author>GreenTech11</author>
	<datestamp>1247844480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds good, and very likely is, but how much energy is lost in generating the vacuum required to give these lights the extra efficiency? The chances are the light is still more efficient even after taking in the production process.Besides, they look so damn cool! That is awesome</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds good , and very likely is , but how much energy is lost in generating the vacuum required to give these lights the extra efficiency ?
The chances are the light is still more efficient even after taking in the production process.Besides , they look so damn cool !
That is awesome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds good, and very likely is, but how much energy is lost in generating the vacuum required to give these lights the extra efficiency?
The chances are the light is still more efficient even after taking in the production process.Besides, they look so damn cool!
That is awesome</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729809</id>
	<title>bah.</title>
	<author>apodyopsis</author>
	<datestamp>1247845440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give me a wall screen TV or a whole ceiling panal light and I'll be impressed.</p><p>It has no real purpose unless somebody sells something from it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me a wall screen TV or a whole ceiling panal light and I 'll be impressed.It has no real purpose unless somebody sells something from it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me a wall screen TV or a whole ceiling panal light and I'll be impressed.It has no real purpose unless somebody sells something from it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732431</id>
	<title>Re:It's just twice the light output</title>
	<author>MagicM</author>
	<datestamp>1247856480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So not THAT great, but still rather awesome.</p></div><p>Really?</p><p><tt>const double good = 100.0;<br>const double great = 150.0;<br>const double awesome = 300.0;</tt></p><p><tt>const double THAT = 1.5;<br>const double rather = 0.7;</tt></p><p><tt>THAT * great &gt; rather * awesome<br>1.5 * 150 &gt; 0.7 * 300<br>225 &gt; 210</tt></p><p><tt><tt>Oh cool, I guess it does work out.  Nice.</tt></tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So not THAT great , but still rather awesome.Really ? const double good = 100.0 ; const double great = 150.0 ; const double awesome = 300.0 ; const double THAT = 1.5 ; const double rather = 0.7 ; THAT * great &gt; rather * awesome1.5 * 150 &gt; 0.7 * 300225 &gt; 210Oh cool , I guess it does work out .
Nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So not THAT great, but still rather awesome.Really?const double good = 100.0;const double great = 150.0;const double awesome = 300.0;const double THAT = 1.5;const double rather = 0.7;THAT * great &gt; rather * awesome1.5 * 150 &gt; 0.7 * 300225 &gt; 210Oh cool, I guess it does work out.
Nice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731751</id>
	<title>Yep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247853660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, even a 100W standard bulb in a small room is much too dark compared to outdoors.  I'd love to have more powerful lighting tech available, but not at reduced output -- at the same output or better.</p><p>Where this will really make a difference though, is in mountain bikes --- it currently costs around &pound;350 for a reasonably high-end lightsource for bikes, and even then, the high-end well-reviewed stuff just sucks for any serious riding in the dark.  Riding in the dark isn't just necessary in winter -- it's also an interesting potential sport. But until the lights are more powerful, cheaper, lighter, and last longer, it's not happening as much as it could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , even a 100W standard bulb in a small room is much too dark compared to outdoors .
I 'd love to have more powerful lighting tech available , but not at reduced output -- at the same output or better.Where this will really make a difference though , is in mountain bikes --- it currently costs around   350 for a reasonably high-end lightsource for bikes , and even then , the high-end well-reviewed stuff just sucks for any serious riding in the dark .
Riding in the dark is n't just necessary in winter -- it 's also an interesting potential sport .
But until the lights are more powerful , cheaper , lighter , and last longer , it 's not happening as much as it could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, even a 100W standard bulb in a small room is much too dark compared to outdoors.
I'd love to have more powerful lighting tech available, but not at reduced output -- at the same output or better.Where this will really make a difference though, is in mountain bikes --- it currently costs around £350 for a reasonably high-end lightsource for bikes, and even then, the high-end well-reviewed stuff just sucks for any serious riding in the dark.
Riding in the dark isn't just necessary in winter -- it's also an interesting potential sport.
But until the lights are more powerful, cheaper, lighter, and last longer, it's not happening as much as it could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731939</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is so numerically challenged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247854380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Number 4</p><p>(4): "increases light intensity twofold" is a factor of 2.</p><p>Is not a power efficiency number, rather it's an area efficiency number. By doubling the intensity you only need half the area to produce the same amount of light, regardless of power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Number 4 ( 4 ) : " increases light intensity twofold " is a factor of 2.Is not a power efficiency number , rather it 's an area efficiency number .
By doubling the intensity you only need half the area to produce the same amount of light , regardless of power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Number 4(4): "increases light intensity twofold" is a factor of 2.Is not a power efficiency number, rather it's an area efficiency number.
By doubling the intensity you only need half the area to produce the same amount of light, regardless of power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732007</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is so numerically challenged</title>
	<author>Lifyre</author>
	<datestamp>1247854680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's obviously somewhere between reality and some stuff they made up to win grant money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's obviously somewhere between reality and some stuff they made up to win grant money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's obviously somewhere between reality and some stuff they made up to win grant money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732089</id>
	<title>lab incandescent lights much more efficient</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1247855040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seven times more efficient according to recent <a href="http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/the-incandescent-bulb-not-dead-yet/" title="nytimes.com"> article </a> [nytimes.com].
Its fascinating you can teach an old dog new tricks with sufficient economic incentives.  I welcome the competition among old and new technologies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seven times more efficient according to recent article [ nytimes.com ] .
Its fascinating you can teach an old dog new tricks with sufficient economic incentives .
I welcome the competition among old and new technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seven times more efficient according to recent  article  [nytimes.com].
Its fascinating you can teach an old dog new tricks with sufficient economic incentives.
I welcome the competition among old and new technologies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730033</id>
	<title>Re:Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs!</title>
	<author>holmstar</author>
	<datestamp>1247846460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh come on, it isn't off-topic.  reduced power consumption means that a smaller (cheaper) battery can be used to power it.  Thus along with other developments (didn't I hear about a roll to roll oled screen manufacturing process a while back?) this could certainly lead to animated packaging... but before that, probably video greeting cards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on , it is n't off-topic .
reduced power consumption means that a smaller ( cheaper ) battery can be used to power it .
Thus along with other developments ( did n't I hear about a roll to roll oled screen manufacturing process a while back ?
) this could certainly lead to animated packaging... but before that , probably video greeting cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on, it isn't off-topic.
reduced power consumption means that a smaller (cheaper) battery can be used to power it.
Thus along with other developments (didn't I hear about a roll to roll oled screen manufacturing process a while back?
) this could certainly lead to animated packaging... but before that, probably video greeting cards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729729</id>
	<title>USA is dying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247845140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yet another breakthrough happening in a foreign country where freedom isn't just a slogan on their fiat currency.  Meanwhile, Joe Biden is warning that we have to spend even more money (that we don't have) to avoid bankruptcy.  Because the cure for excessive government spending is even more government spending.  At least according to big government liberals, a term that applies to most democrats and republicans.
<p>
Mod me down but spend a couple minutes thinking about the future. Where's the hope?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yet another breakthrough happening in a foreign country where freedom is n't just a slogan on their fiat currency .
Meanwhile , Joe Biden is warning that we have to spend even more money ( that we do n't have ) to avoid bankruptcy .
Because the cure for excessive government spending is even more government spending .
At least according to big government liberals , a term that applies to most democrats and republicans .
Mod me down but spend a couple minutes thinking about the future .
Where 's the hope ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yet another breakthrough happening in a foreign country where freedom isn't just a slogan on their fiat currency.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden is warning that we have to spend even more money (that we don't have) to avoid bankruptcy.
Because the cure for excessive government spending is even more government spending.
At least according to big government liberals, a term that applies to most democrats and republicans.
Mod me down but spend a couple minutes thinking about the future.
Where's the hope?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730839</id>
	<title>Re:It's just twice the light output</title>
	<author>ckthorp</author>
	<datestamp>1247849700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't "75\% more efficient" only 75\% more output?  Efficiency is usually listed as lm/W which clearly would indicate 75\% more efficient is 75\% more lumens.  On the other hand, "75\% less energy" is 4 times the efficiency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't " 75 \ % more efficient " only 75 \ % more output ?
Efficiency is usually listed as lm/W which clearly would indicate 75 \ % more efficient is 75 \ % more lumens .
On the other hand , " 75 \ % less energy " is 4 times the efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't "75\% more efficient" only 75\% more output?
Efficiency is usually listed as lm/W which clearly would indicate 75\% more efficient is 75\% more lumens.
On the other hand, "75\% less energy" is 4 times the efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730497</id>
	<title>PLEASE MOD AS TROLL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247848260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) vacuum deposition has nothing to do with whales<br>2) OLEDs have nothing to do with whales<br>3) RTFA and read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic\_light-emitting\_diode" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] before posting such stupid comments.</p><p>Come on, insightful??? who is the drunken guy who gave that mod?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) vacuum deposition has nothing to do with whales2 ) OLEDs have nothing to do with whales3 ) RTFA and read Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] before posting such stupid comments.Come on , insightful ? ? ?
who is the drunken guy who gave that mod ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) vacuum deposition has nothing to do with whales2) OLEDs have nothing to do with whales3) RTFA and read Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] before posting such stupid comments.Come on, insightful???
who is the drunken guy who gave that mod?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729773</id>
	<title>But how long do they last?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247845260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OLEDs have traditionally had very short life spans compared to other display technologies.  Does the 'surfance plasmon enhanced' (SPE) device fair any better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OLEDs have traditionally had very short life spans compared to other display technologies .
Does the 'surfance plasmon enhanced ' ( SPE ) device fair any better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OLEDs have traditionally had very short life spans compared to other display technologies.
Does the 'surfance plasmon enhanced' (SPE) device fair any better?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729527</id>
	<title>You know what is going to happen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247844300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just going to buy lights that are 75\% brighter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just going to buy lights that are 75 \ % brighter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just going to buy lights that are 75\% brighter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28744127</id>
	<title>Re:two possible improvements</title>
	<author>atamido</author>
	<datestamp>1247918580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Silver isn't cheap, but in that quantity it's not a big deal.</p></div><p>Silver is actually a lot cheaper than most people realize.  It's about 100x more expensive than copper, or around $200/pound.  But yeah, when you're dealing with the amounts used here, not even platinum is likely to have a significant impact on production costs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Silver is n't cheap , but in that quantity it 's not a big deal.Silver is actually a lot cheaper than most people realize .
It 's about 100x more expensive than copper , or around $ 200/pound .
But yeah , when you 're dealing with the amounts used here , not even platinum is likely to have a significant impact on production costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silver isn't cheap, but in that quantity it's not a big deal.Silver is actually a lot cheaper than most people realize.
It's about 100x more expensive than copper, or around $200/pound.
But yeah, when you're dealing with the amounts used here, not even platinum is likely to have a significant impact on production costs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730917</id>
	<title>Re:That's all well and good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247849940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes because those emitted photons are of much lower quality then the reflected kind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes because those emitted photons are of much lower quality then the reflected kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes because those emitted photons are of much lower quality then the reflected kind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732885</id>
	<title>Re:It's just twice the light output</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1247858340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like it emits 75\% more of that "Efficient Light" that it produces.</p><p>I'm just saying, I could see how the statement could be reduced to something ambiguous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like it emits 75 \ % more of that " Efficient Light " that it produces.I 'm just saying , I could see how the statement could be reduced to something ambiguous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like it emits 75\% more of that "Efficient Light" that it produces.I'm just saying, I could see how the statement could be reduced to something ambiguous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734355</id>
	<title>Re:That's all well and good...</title>
	<author>nilgiri</author>
	<datestamp>1247822160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, that would be cool, but I think you are missing the bigger picture.  Yes, OLEDs will be used for displays (and already are if you have more dollars than sense), but the end game is general lighting.  They were already more efficient than LEDs, which can be more efficient than CFLs depending on how they get their DC current, and OLEDs can be screen printed.  I think ink jets can be used to make them as well, but I'm not sure.  Either way, once they ramp up production, you can buy the most efficient lighting in the world (in both end use and manufacture) for a fraction of the cost of old incandescents, with a whole bunch more features.  You buy it by the role, cut it to fit the shape you want, attach a dimmer and maybe a color controller.  Heck, if you want you can connect the color controller to a color sensor so the light coming from OLED poster matches the outdoor light: a little yellow at dawn and dust, a little blue at noon, and fading between all day to match.  THAT could do your peepers and mood a lot of good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that would be cool , but I think you are missing the bigger picture .
Yes , OLEDs will be used for displays ( and already are if you have more dollars than sense ) , but the end game is general lighting .
They were already more efficient than LEDs , which can be more efficient than CFLs depending on how they get their DC current , and OLEDs can be screen printed .
I think ink jets can be used to make them as well , but I 'm not sure .
Either way , once they ramp up production , you can buy the most efficient lighting in the world ( in both end use and manufacture ) for a fraction of the cost of old incandescents , with a whole bunch more features .
You buy it by the role , cut it to fit the shape you want , attach a dimmer and maybe a color controller .
Heck , if you want you can connect the color controller to a color sensor so the light coming from OLED poster matches the outdoor light : a little yellow at dawn and dust , a little blue at noon , and fading between all day to match .
THAT could do your peepers and mood a lot of good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that would be cool, but I think you are missing the bigger picture.
Yes, OLEDs will be used for displays (and already are if you have more dollars than sense), but the end game is general lighting.
They were already more efficient than LEDs, which can be more efficient than CFLs depending on how they get their DC current, and OLEDs can be screen printed.
I think ink jets can be used to make them as well, but I'm not sure.
Either way, once they ramp up production, you can buy the most efficient lighting in the world (in both end use and manufacture) for a fraction of the cost of old incandescents, with a whole bunch more features.
You buy it by the role, cut it to fit the shape you want, attach a dimmer and maybe a color controller.
Heck, if you want you can connect the color controller to a color sensor so the light coming from OLED poster matches the outdoor light: a little yellow at dawn and dust, a little blue at noon, and fading between all day to match.
THAT could do your peepers and mood a lot of good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730275</id>
	<title>Re:It's just twice the light output</title>
	<author>ahecht</author>
	<datestamp>1247847420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just going to post that. Assuming power consumption/light output is linear, a 1.75 increase in luminosity is equivalent to a 42.9\% reduction in power since (1.75-1)/1.75 =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.429</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just going to post that .
Assuming power consumption/light output is linear , a 1.75 increase in luminosity is equivalent to a 42.9 \ % reduction in power since ( 1.75-1 ) /1.75 = .429</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just going to post that.
Assuming power consumption/light output is linear, a 1.75 increase in luminosity is equivalent to a 42.9\% reduction in power since (1.75-1)/1.75 = .429</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28737857</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is so numerically challenged</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247846100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(1): "a 75\% more efficient light" would mean an increase to 175\% or original, a factor of 1.75 times better.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Wouldn't that be merely 0.75 times <i>better</i>? With your version, if it were a "0\% more efficient light", you'd be wording it as "a factor of 1.0 times better".</p><blockquote><div><p>(2): "reducing by 75\%" means a factor of 4 better.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>If power weren't reduced, you'd be wording it "a factor of 1 better". But this one is tricky as factor of N implies a fraction of 1/N, so we can't just say "a factor of 3 better", as the fraction is 1/4.</p><blockquote><div><p>(3): "increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times" means a 2.75 time increase, a factor of 2.75</p></div>
</blockquote><p>In this case, the original is wrong as you point out, but then you compound the same error again! An increase of 2.75 times means it goes from 1 to 1+2.75=3.75. It is true that an increase from 1 to 2.75 is a factor of 2.75, but the only an increase by a factor of 0.75. Again, if it had no increase from 1.0 to 1.0, then there would be a factor of 1.0 between them, and thus an increase by a factor of 0.</p><blockquote><div><p>: "increases light intensity twofold" is a factor of 2.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
(4)A factor of 3. An increase from 1.0 to 3.0 (1.0+1.0*2) is a factor of 3, an increase by a factor of 2.

In all of the above, the thing that's forgotten is that the word "increase", "more", "better", etc. means that there's an implicit 1.0 added. "I increased my stock of shells by 1", "I added 10\% to my stock of shells", "I have 10\% more shells". All of these involve my current shell stock being added to by the amount mentioned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) : " a 75 \ % more efficient light " would mean an increase to 175 \ % or original , a factor of 1.75 times better .
Would n't that be merely 0.75 times better ?
With your version , if it were a " 0 \ % more efficient light " , you 'd be wording it as " a factor of 1.0 times better " .
( 2 ) : " reducing by 75 \ % " means a factor of 4 better .
If power were n't reduced , you 'd be wording it " a factor of 1 better " .
But this one is tricky as factor of N implies a fraction of 1/N , so we ca n't just say " a factor of 3 better " , as the fraction is 1/4 .
( 3 ) : " increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times " means a 2.75 time increase , a factor of 2.75 In this case , the original is wrong as you point out , but then you compound the same error again !
An increase of 2.75 times means it goes from 1 to 1 + 2.75 = 3.75 .
It is true that an increase from 1 to 2.75 is a factor of 2.75 , but the only an increase by a factor of 0.75 .
Again , if it had no increase from 1.0 to 1.0 , then there would be a factor of 1.0 between them , and thus an increase by a factor of 0. : " increases light intensity twofold " is a factor of 2 .
( 4 ) A factor of 3 .
An increase from 1.0 to 3.0 ( 1.0 + 1.0 * 2 ) is a factor of 3 , an increase by a factor of 2 .
In all of the above , the thing that 's forgotten is that the word " increase " , " more " , " better " , etc .
means that there 's an implicit 1.0 added .
" I increased my stock of shells by 1 " , " I added 10 \ % to my stock of shells " , " I have 10 \ % more shells " .
All of these involve my current shell stock being added to by the amount mentioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1): "a 75\% more efficient light" would mean an increase to 175\% or original, a factor of 1.75 times better.
Wouldn't that be merely 0.75 times better?
With your version, if it were a "0\% more efficient light", you'd be wording it as "a factor of 1.0 times better".
(2): "reducing by 75\%" means a factor of 4 better.
If power weren't reduced, you'd be wording it "a factor of 1 better".
But this one is tricky as factor of N implies a fraction of 1/N, so we can't just say "a factor of 3 better", as the fraction is 1/4.
(3): "increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times" means a 2.75 time increase, a factor of 2.75
In this case, the original is wrong as you point out, but then you compound the same error again!
An increase of 2.75 times means it goes from 1 to 1+2.75=3.75.
It is true that an increase from 1 to 2.75 is a factor of 2.75, but the only an increase by a factor of 0.75.
Again, if it had no increase from 1.0 to 1.0, then there would be a factor of 1.0 between them, and thus an increase by a factor of 0.: "increases light intensity twofold" is a factor of 2.
(4)A factor of 3.
An increase from 1.0 to 3.0 (1.0+1.0*2) is a factor of 3, an increase by a factor of 2.
In all of the above, the thing that's forgotten is that the word "increase", "more", "better", etc.
means that there's an implicit 1.0 added.
"I increased my stock of shells by 1", "I added 10\% to my stock of shells", "I have 10\% more shells".
All of these involve my current shell stock being added to by the amount mentioned.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731801</id>
	<title>Re:two possible improvements</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1247853900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Silver corrodes quickly in open air, that's why most supermarkets sell silver polish. IIRC, the culprit is sulphur.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Silver corrodes quickly in open air , that 's why most supermarkets sell silver polish .
IIRC , the culprit is sulphur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silver corrodes quickly in open air, that's why most supermarkets sell silver polish.
IIRC, the culprit is sulphur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729651</id>
	<title>The biggest plus is missing...</title>
	<author>shacky003</author>
	<datestamp>1247844840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll be the first of the many here at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. to cry out "Bigger, Brighter, PORN!" as a single tear forms...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be the first of the many here at / .
to cry out " Bigger , Brighter , PORN !
" as a single tear forms.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be the first of the many here at /.
to cry out "Bigger, Brighter, PORN!
" as a single tear forms...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731415</id>
	<title>Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs.</title>
	<author>K. S. Kyosuke</author>
	<datestamp>1247852220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same here. I perform vacuum deposition on a regular basis. Every time I hoover my room, I deposit the vacuum back into the closet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here .
I perform vacuum deposition on a regular basis .
Every time I hoover my room , I deposit the vacuum back into the closet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.
I perform vacuum deposition on a regular basis.
Every time I hoover my room, I deposit the vacuum back into the closet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729737</id>
	<title>Re:Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs!</title>
	<author>shacky003</author>
	<datestamp>1247845200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just a little bit longer for the cross-marketing to kick in..<br>
Mommy, why is the Special K flashing an ad for tampons?
<br> <br>I'll bet the farm something like that is in the not-so-distant future..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a little bit longer for the cross-marketing to kick in. . Mommy , why is the Special K flashing an ad for tampons ?
I 'll bet the farm something like that is in the not-so-distant future. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a little bit longer for the cross-marketing to kick in..
Mommy, why is the Special K flashing an ad for tampons?
I'll bet the farm something like that is in the not-so-distant future..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731867</id>
	<title>Re:two possible improvements</title>
	<author>bperkins</author>
	<datestamp>1247854200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;em&gt; TFA didn't mention lifetime, and I figure that it's not a huge issue anymore for OLEDs. &lt;/em&gt;<br><br>My cynical self takes the opposite view.  If they don't mention lifetime, it's probably awful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA did n't mention lifetime , and I figure that it 's not a huge issue anymore for OLEDs .
My cynical self takes the opposite view .
If they do n't mention lifetime , it 's probably awful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> TFA didn't mention lifetime, and I figure that it's not a huge issue anymore for OLEDs.
My cynical self takes the opposite view.
If they don't mention lifetime, it's probably awful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729781</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good but...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1247845320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would certainly be modestly more expensive than an otherwise equivalent process that doesn't require a high vacuum step; but vacuum deposition isn't exactly exotic. All sorts of surface metalizing processes use it.<br> <br>

Aside from that, there are applications(actually quite a lot of them) where being able to consume less energy at the point of use, even if you consume more energy overall, is quite valuable. For any "off grid" application(whether permanent, like your survivalist bunker in Montana, or temporary, like your macbook during a trip to starbucks) what really matters is how much energy your device is using <i>now</i> not how much energy it took to create. For that matter, any rechargeable battery is highly wasteful, since a fair bit of the charge energy will just be lost as heat; but having the energy where you need it is obviously valuable. This is the same reason why solar panels became valuable for specific off grid applications well before they reached the break-even point for lifetime energy cost vs. energy production.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would certainly be modestly more expensive than an otherwise equivalent process that does n't require a high vacuum step ; but vacuum deposition is n't exactly exotic .
All sorts of surface metalizing processes use it .
Aside from that , there are applications ( actually quite a lot of them ) where being able to consume less energy at the point of use , even if you consume more energy overall , is quite valuable .
For any " off grid " application ( whether permanent , like your survivalist bunker in Montana , or temporary , like your macbook during a trip to starbucks ) what really matters is how much energy your device is using now not how much energy it took to create .
For that matter , any rechargeable battery is highly wasteful , since a fair bit of the charge energy will just be lost as heat ; but having the energy where you need it is obviously valuable .
This is the same reason why solar panels became valuable for specific off grid applications well before they reached the break-even point for lifetime energy cost vs. energy production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would certainly be modestly more expensive than an otherwise equivalent process that doesn't require a high vacuum step; but vacuum deposition isn't exactly exotic.
All sorts of surface metalizing processes use it.
Aside from that, there are applications(actually quite a lot of them) where being able to consume less energy at the point of use, even if you consume more energy overall, is quite valuable.
For any "off grid" application(whether permanent, like your survivalist bunker in Montana, or temporary, like your macbook during a trip to starbucks) what really matters is how much energy your device is using now not how much energy it took to create.
For that matter, any rechargeable battery is highly wasteful, since a fair bit of the charge energy will just be lost as heat; but having the energy where you need it is obviously valuable.
This is the same reason why solar panels became valuable for specific off grid applications well before they reached the break-even point for lifetime energy cost vs. energy production.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729549</id>
	<title>Gotta catch 'em all!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247844420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I choose <i>you</i>, Plasmon!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I choose you , Plasmon !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I choose you, Plasmon!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734205</id>
	<title>And with the new solar panels...</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1247821440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given how frequently Slashdot reports massive increases in the efficiency of lights and how frequently it reports massive increases in the efficiency of solar panels pretty soon we'll be able to hook up a light bulb to some solar cells and have a perpetual motion machine!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given how frequently Slashdot reports massive increases in the efficiency of lights and how frequently it reports massive increases in the efficiency of solar panels pretty soon we 'll be able to hook up a light bulb to some solar cells and have a perpetual motion machine !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given how frequently Slashdot reports massive increases in the efficiency of lights and how frequently it reports massive increases in the efficiency of solar panels pretty soon we'll be able to hook up a light bulb to some solar cells and have a perpetual motion machine!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732685</id>
	<title>Re:43\% less power, you mean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247857620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah the article makes inconsistent statments. It looks like a 50\% reduction in energy consumption, or 100\% increase in efficiency ("continuous wave PL results showed a twofold enhanced intensity").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah the article makes inconsistent statments .
It looks like a 50 \ % reduction in energy consumption , or 100 \ % increase in efficiency ( " continuous wave PL results showed a twofold enhanced intensity " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah the article makes inconsistent statments.
It looks like a 50\% reduction in energy consumption, or 100\% increase in efficiency ("continuous wave PL results showed a twofold enhanced intensity").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28740839</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good but...</title>
	<author>ebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1247932740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you don't know how much energy it takes to make a vacuum, but you pose that it might be more than the light will save?  This kind of lazy false tree-hugging disappoints those who care and scares off those who don't.</p><p>Air pressure is roughly 15 PSI at sea level.  The energy required to create a vacuum is roughly the energy needed to lift 15 pounds from the bottom of your vacuum vessel to the top of the vacuum vessel.  Naturally, the exact amount of energy depends on the size of the vessel, and you'll probably have to use a bit more due to mechanical inefficiencies in the apparatus moving the air out.</p><p>If you can't bother to calculate something, then don't pose it as a reason it's less efficient overall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you do n't know how much energy it takes to make a vacuum , but you pose that it might be more than the light will save ?
This kind of lazy false tree-hugging disappoints those who care and scares off those who do n't.Air pressure is roughly 15 PSI at sea level .
The energy required to create a vacuum is roughly the energy needed to lift 15 pounds from the bottom of your vacuum vessel to the top of the vacuum vessel .
Naturally , the exact amount of energy depends on the size of the vessel , and you 'll probably have to use a bit more due to mechanical inefficiencies in the apparatus moving the air out.If you ca n't bother to calculate something , then do n't pose it as a reason it 's less efficient overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you don't know how much energy it takes to make a vacuum, but you pose that it might be more than the light will save?
This kind of lazy false tree-hugging disappoints those who care and scares off those who don't.Air pressure is roughly 15 PSI at sea level.
The energy required to create a vacuum is roughly the energy needed to lift 15 pounds from the bottom of your vacuum vessel to the top of the vacuum vessel.
Naturally, the exact amount of energy depends on the size of the vessel, and you'll probably have to use a bit more due to mechanical inefficiencies in the apparatus moving the air out.If you can't bother to calculate something, then don't pose it as a reason it's less efficient overall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729883</id>
	<title>Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs.</title>
	<author>CRiMSON</author>
	<datestamp>1247845740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about you do your own fucking research. Or is that asking a bit too much? Then again this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. So yah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about you do your own fucking research .
Or is that asking a bit too much ?
Then again this is / .
So yah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about you do your own fucking research.
Or is that asking a bit too much?
Then again this is /.
So yah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732729</id>
	<title>Re:two possible improvements</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1247857740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Another big advantage with using silver is that it isn't susceptible to photocorrosion (silver oxides do not form readily).</p></div></blockquote><p>
They don't?  What's with all the tarnish on the silverware, then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another big advantage with using silver is that it is n't susceptible to photocorrosion ( silver oxides do not form readily ) .
They do n't ?
What 's with all the tarnish on the silverware , then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another big advantage with using silver is that it isn't susceptible to photocorrosion (silver oxides do not form readily).
They don't?
What's with all the tarnish on the silverware, then?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729673</id>
	<title>Journal of Ultrafast Science</title>
	<author>goobermaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247844960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now \_that\_ is a cool name for a scientific journal. I can imagine reading it now...</p><p>[Me]: Wow, OLED's use 75\% less energy now!<br>-turns pages-<br>[Me]: Oh, fusion! That was fast!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now \ _that \ _ is a cool name for a scientific journal .
I can imagine reading it now... [ Me ] : Wow , OLED 's use 75 \ % less energy now ! -turns pages- [ Me ] : Oh , fusion !
That was fast !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now \_that\_ is a cool name for a scientific journal.
I can imagine reading it now...[Me]: Wow, OLED's use 75\% less energy now!-turns pages-[Me]: Oh, fusion!
That was fast!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734975</id>
	<title>Re:Yep</title>
	<author>Mia'cova</author>
	<datestamp>1247824800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I'd rather double the battery life on my iphone than save a few dollars on my bike..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'd rather double the battery life on my iphone than save a few dollars on my bike. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I'd rather double the battery life on my iphone than save a few dollars on my bike..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734951</id>
	<title>Re:You know what is going to happen...</title>
	<author>Mia'cova</author>
	<datestamp>1247824680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>400\%....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>400 \ % ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>400\%....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734181</id>
	<title>Re:Journal of Ultrafast Science</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1247821320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So fast, the latest issue personally delivered by ninjas, wherever you are - a few hours after you get the last one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So fast , the latest issue personally delivered by ninjas , wherever you are - a few hours after you get the last one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So fast, the latest issue personally delivered by ninjas, wherever you are - a few hours after you get the last one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732879</id>
	<title>Re:That's all well and good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247858340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dialated pupils are wider so the ability of your eye (or glasses) to focus the image matters much more. When you go outside and light is bright, the small pupil means focusing is less important (an infinitesimally small pinhole pupil needs no focusing at all). So maybe you just need better glasses/contacts to see in dim light. Alternatively you can up the background light in your room, as looking at a bright LCD in a dim room is going to be uncomfortable. Printed text is also generally much higher resolution and closer to your face than any screen. I get the feeling that typical LCD dpi aren't good enough to make a convincing white color as the eye picks out individual RGB elements.. at least it looks a bit grainy to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dialated pupils are wider so the ability of your eye ( or glasses ) to focus the image matters much more .
When you go outside and light is bright , the small pupil means focusing is less important ( an infinitesimally small pinhole pupil needs no focusing at all ) .
So maybe you just need better glasses/contacts to see in dim light .
Alternatively you can up the background light in your room , as looking at a bright LCD in a dim room is going to be uncomfortable .
Printed text is also generally much higher resolution and closer to your face than any screen .
I get the feeling that typical LCD dpi are n't good enough to make a convincing white color as the eye picks out individual RGB elements.. at least it looks a bit grainy to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dialated pupils are wider so the ability of your eye (or glasses) to focus the image matters much more.
When you go outside and light is bright, the small pupil means focusing is less important (an infinitesimally small pinhole pupil needs no focusing at all).
So maybe you just need better glasses/contacts to see in dim light.
Alternatively you can up the background light in your room, as looking at a bright LCD in a dim room is going to be uncomfortable.
Printed text is also generally much higher resolution and closer to your face than any screen.
I get the feeling that typical LCD dpi aren't good enough to make a convincing white color as the eye picks out individual RGB elements.. at least it looks a bit grainy to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730507</id>
	<title>TFA is so numerically challenged</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1247848320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(1)  OLED Breakthrough Yields 75\% More Efficient Light<br>(2)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...reducing the ultra-thin lights&#226;(TM) energy consumption by 75\%<br>(3) increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times<br>(4) increases light intensity twofold.</p><p>*Four* numerical figures, and no two of them compatible in any way.</p><p>(1): "a 75\% more efficient light" would mean an increase to 175\% or original, a factor of 1.75 times better.<br>(2): "reducing by 75\%" means a factor of 4 better.<br>(3):  "increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times" means a 2.75 time increase, a factor of 2.75<br>(4):   "increases light intensity twofold" is a factor of 2.</p><p>All incompatible.   Wonder what the real numbers are?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) OLED Breakthrough Yields 75 \ % More Efficient Light ( 2 ) ...reducing the ultra-thin lights   ( TM ) energy consumption by 75 \ % ( 3 ) increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times ( 4 ) increases light intensity twofold .
* Four * numerical figures , and no two of them compatible in any way .
( 1 ) : " a 75 \ % more efficient light " would mean an increase to 175 \ % or original , a factor of 1.75 times better .
( 2 ) : " reducing by 75 \ % " means a factor of 4 better .
( 3 ) : " increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times " means a 2.75 time increase , a factor of 2.75 ( 4 ) : " increases light intensity twofold " is a factor of 2.All incompatible .
Wonder what the real numbers are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1)  OLED Breakthrough Yields 75\% More Efficient Light(2) ...reducing the ultra-thin lightsâ(TM) energy consumption by 75\%(3) increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times(4) increases light intensity twofold.
*Four* numerical figures, and no two of them compatible in any way.
(1): "a 75\% more efficient light" would mean an increase to 175\% or original, a factor of 1.75 times better.
(2): "reducing by 75\%" means a factor of 4 better.
(3):  "increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times" means a 2.75 time increase, a factor of 2.75(4):   "increases light intensity twofold" is a factor of 2.All incompatible.
Wonder what the real numbers are?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730237</id>
	<title>Green? I hope more....</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1247847300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...I hope this isn't like some of those other "eco friendly" solutions...</i> <br> <br>
Nowhere in either article is there any claim towards being eco-friendly.  Neither is the word "green" in the articles, so I am quite at a loss as to why you're off on this tangent.  The only claim that might be considered close is the 75\% reduction in energy use, however that statement is  leaps and bounds away from "It's green and eco-friendly".<br> <br>
Green?  I hope these new OLEDs are more than just green, but red, blue, orange, white.... every color of the rainbow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I hope this is n't like some of those other " eco friendly " solutions.. . Nowhere in either article is there any claim towards being eco-friendly .
Neither is the word " green " in the articles , so I am quite at a loss as to why you 're off on this tangent .
The only claim that might be considered close is the 75 \ % reduction in energy use , however that statement is leaps and bounds away from " It 's green and eco-friendly " .
Green ? I hope these new OLEDs are more than just green , but red , blue , orange , white.... every color of the rainbow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I hope this isn't like some of those other "eco friendly" solutions...  
Nowhere in either article is there any claim towards being eco-friendly.
Neither is the word "green" in the articles, so I am quite at a loss as to why you're off on this tangent.
The only claim that might be considered close is the 75\% reduction in energy use, however that statement is  leaps and bounds away from "It's green and eco-friendly".
Green?  I hope these new OLEDs are more than just green, but red, blue, orange, white.... every color of the rainbow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729659</id>
	<title>43\% less power, you mean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247844900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The lights radiate 75\% more energy. That means a reduction of power of 1 - (1/1.75) = 43\%, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lights radiate 75 \ % more energy .
That means a reduction of power of 1 - ( 1/1.75 ) = 43 \ % , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lights radiate 75\% more energy.
That means a reduction of power of 1 - (1/1.75) = 43\%, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734617</id>
	<title>IMOD?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247823180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been waiting to see IMOD products ever since that article in Scientific American a couple years back, but...</p><p>http://www.qualcomm.com/common/documents/articles/QMT\_Scientific\_American\_Nov2007.pdf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been waiting to see IMOD products ever since that article in Scientific American a couple years back , but...http : //www.qualcomm.com/common/documents/articles/QMT \ _Scientific \ _American \ _Nov2007.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been waiting to see IMOD products ever since that article in Scientific American a couple years back, but...http://www.qualcomm.com/common/documents/articles/QMT\_Scientific\_American\_Nov2007.pdf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28741381</id>
	<title>Re:You know what is going to happen...</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1247937240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People do seem to like their brightness.  Too often, I see them have their TVs, monitors and devices set so bright that it even screws up the color quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do seem to like their brightness .
Too often , I see them have their TVs , monitors and devices set so bright that it even screws up the color quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People do seem to like their brightness.
Too often, I see them have their TVs, monitors and devices set so bright that it even screws up the color quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730077</id>
	<title>Re:bah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247846640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your reason is right here<br><a href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/" title="thinkgeek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/</a> [thinkgeek.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your reason is right herehttp : //www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ [ thinkgeek.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your reason is right herehttp://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/ [thinkgeek.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28733921</id>
	<title>Re:Yep</title>
	<author>seven of five</author>
	<datestamp>1247863500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Errr... if you're using a light, you're not riding in the dark.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Errr... if you 're using a light , you 're not riding in the dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Errr... if you're using a light, you're not riding in the dark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729879</id>
	<title>It's just twice the light output</title>
	<author>vojtech</author>
	<datestamp>1247845740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just 75\% increased emission rate, not 75\% less energy. Continuous wave photoluminiscence doubles, though, according to the article. 75\% more efficient would've been four times the output. So not THAT great, but still rather awesome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just 75 \ % increased emission rate , not 75 \ % less energy .
Continuous wave photoluminiscence doubles , though , according to the article .
75 \ % more efficient would 've been four times the output .
So not THAT great , but still rather awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just 75\% increased emission rate, not 75\% less energy.
Continuous wave photoluminiscence doubles, though, according to the article.
75\% more efficient would've been four times the output.
So not THAT great, but still rather awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730315</id>
	<title>Any applications to TVs?</title>
	<author>eison</author>
	<datestamp>1247847540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean I should wait more on a large-screen television, or do better OLEDs not have anything to do with TV in the forseeable future?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean I should wait more on a large-screen television , or do better OLEDs not have anything to do with TV in the forseeable future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean I should wait more on a large-screen television, or do better OLEDs not have anything to do with TV in the forseeable future?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729733</id>
	<title>Compared to what?</title>
	<author>sunking2</author>
	<datestamp>1247845200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Previous oleds (of which I have no idea how those compare to a standard bulb), or a standard bulb or ???? How does this compare to a standard 75w bulb?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Previous oleds ( of which I have no idea how those compare to a standard bulb ) , or a standard bulb or ? ? ? ?
How does this compare to a standard 75w bulb ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Previous oleds (of which I have no idea how those compare to a standard bulb), or a standard bulb or ????
How does this compare to a standard 75w bulb?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28740883</id>
	<title>Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs.</title>
	<author>ebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1247933220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I shouldn't but I'll bite.</p><p>The chance for ecological whaling passed a long time ago, when people decided that it wasn't important to kill whales at a rate lower than their reproduction rate.</p><p>Now, due to the errors of the past, we are left with the alternative to stop whaling altogether, or have no whales in the future.  Most sound minded people realize that having no whales in the future means whaling will stop altogether, so it's a matter of stopping whaling either way.  I vote we stop whaling now, so the species can repopulate and ecological whaling will be a possibility in the future.</p><p>The whalers don't want to know what the whale reproduction rate is, and they don't want to be limited to harvesting at a very low rate.  To them it's money in the ocean, and they want to pull it all out faster than their competing whalers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I should n't but I 'll bite.The chance for ecological whaling passed a long time ago , when people decided that it was n't important to kill whales at a rate lower than their reproduction rate.Now , due to the errors of the past , we are left with the alternative to stop whaling altogether , or have no whales in the future .
Most sound minded people realize that having no whales in the future means whaling will stop altogether , so it 's a matter of stopping whaling either way .
I vote we stop whaling now , so the species can repopulate and ecological whaling will be a possibility in the future.The whalers do n't want to know what the whale reproduction rate is , and they do n't want to be limited to harvesting at a very low rate .
To them it 's money in the ocean , and they want to pull it all out faster than their competing whalers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I shouldn't but I'll bite.The chance for ecological whaling passed a long time ago, when people decided that it wasn't important to kill whales at a rate lower than their reproduction rate.Now, due to the errors of the past, we are left with the alternative to stop whaling altogether, or have no whales in the future.
Most sound minded people realize that having no whales in the future means whaling will stop altogether, so it's a matter of stopping whaling either way.
I vote we stop whaling now, so the species can repopulate and ecological whaling will be a possibility in the future.The whalers don't want to know what the whale reproduction rate is, and they don't want to be limited to harvesting at a very low rate.
To them it's money in the ocean, and they want to pull it all out faster than their competing whalers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730127</id>
	<title>two possible improvements</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1247846820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many methods for organic device deposition make use of inkjet printing which is extremely low-cost and easy to do (I'm guessing roughly several square miles per day).</p><p>They're using silver nanoparticles. Silver isn't cheap, but in that quantity it's not a big deal. Possible improvements to this method include using a different nanoparticle material (but silver is the best for surface plasmon effects, except for maybe gold) and incorporating inkjet printing to avoid high-cost vacuum environments. I don't think an inkjet deposition method would interfere with surface plasmon interactions on the nanoparticles so we should still see good efficiency.</p><p>TFA didn't mention lifetime, and I figure that it's not a huge issue anymore for OLEDs. Another big advantage with using silver is that it isn't susceptible to photocorrosion (silver oxides do not form readily).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many methods for organic device deposition make use of inkjet printing which is extremely low-cost and easy to do ( I 'm guessing roughly several square miles per day ) .They 're using silver nanoparticles .
Silver is n't cheap , but in that quantity it 's not a big deal .
Possible improvements to this method include using a different nanoparticle material ( but silver is the best for surface plasmon effects , except for maybe gold ) and incorporating inkjet printing to avoid high-cost vacuum environments .
I do n't think an inkjet deposition method would interfere with surface plasmon interactions on the nanoparticles so we should still see good efficiency.TFA did n't mention lifetime , and I figure that it 's not a huge issue anymore for OLEDs .
Another big advantage with using silver is that it is n't susceptible to photocorrosion ( silver oxides do not form readily ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many methods for organic device deposition make use of inkjet printing which is extremely low-cost and easy to do (I'm guessing roughly several square miles per day).They're using silver nanoparticles.
Silver isn't cheap, but in that quantity it's not a big deal.
Possible improvements to this method include using a different nanoparticle material (but silver is the best for surface plasmon effects, except for maybe gold) and incorporating inkjet printing to avoid high-cost vacuum environments.
I don't think an inkjet deposition method would interfere with surface plasmon interactions on the nanoparticles so we should still see good efficiency.TFA didn't mention lifetime, and I figure that it's not a huge issue anymore for OLEDs.
Another big advantage with using silver is that it isn't susceptible to photocorrosion (silver oxides do not form readily).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732217</id>
	<title>Re:That's all well and good...</title>
	<author>thesupraman</author>
	<datestamp>1247855640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever seen a good old paper-white grayscale CRT?</p><p>Simply adjust your monitor to suit - it aint that hard (except of course many LCDs have very poor spectra..)</p><p>A lot of people run their monitor eye-burningly bright, then complain of eye strain - a book doesnt actually have that much contrast!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever seen a good old paper-white grayscale CRT ? Simply adjust your monitor to suit - it aint that hard ( except of course many LCDs have very poor spectra.. ) A lot of people run their monitor eye-burningly bright , then complain of eye strain - a book doesnt actually have that much contrast !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever seen a good old paper-white grayscale CRT?Simply adjust your monitor to suit - it aint that hard (except of course many LCDs have very poor spectra..)A lot of people run their monitor eye-burningly bright, then complain of eye strain - a book doesnt actually have that much contrast!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729821</id>
	<title>Re:43\% less power, you mean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247845440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, thought so too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , thought so too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, thought so too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731999</id>
	<title>Mmm, vague English grammar</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1247854620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The world needs more <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban" title="wikipedia.org">Lojbanists!</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>"75\% More Efficient Lights"--does the breakthrough mean that the lights produced are 75\% more efficient, or that 75\% more lights are being made that are efficient?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The world needs more Lojbanists !
[ wikipedia.org ] " 75 \ % More Efficient Lights " --does the breakthrough mean that the lights produced are 75 \ % more efficient , or that 75 \ % more lights are being made that are efficient ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world needs more Lojbanists!
[wikipedia.org]"75\% More Efficient Lights"--does the breakthrough mean that the lights produced are 75\% more efficient, or that 75\% more lights are being made that are efficient?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729693</id>
	<title>Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs.</title>
	<author>SirGarlon</author>
	<datestamp>1247845020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would think the usefulness of these OLEDs would be more for brighter (daylight readable) electronic displays than for hugging trees and crunching granola.  Eco friendliness is not the only reason to conserve power; consider for example extended battery life as a more tangible benefit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think the usefulness of these OLEDs would be more for brighter ( daylight readable ) electronic displays than for hugging trees and crunching granola .
Eco friendliness is not the only reason to conserve power ; consider for example extended battery life as a more tangible benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think the usefulness of these OLEDs would be more for brighter (daylight readable) electronic displays than for hugging trees and crunching granola.
Eco friendliness is not the only reason to conserve power; consider for example extended battery life as a more tangible benefit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729535</id>
	<title>I can see the spam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247844360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>make more out of your desires</p><p>click here to order your free shipment of herbal plasmon enhanced OLEDs for 365 percent enhanced efficiency</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>make more out of your desiresclick here to order your free shipment of herbal plasmon enhanced OLEDs for 365 percent enhanced efficiency</tokentext>
<sentencetext>make more out of your desiresclick here to order your free shipment of herbal plasmon enhanced OLEDs for 365 percent enhanced efficiency</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731077</id>
	<title>Other reasons for eye strain</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1247850660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) One other difference is the image/light from many screens tends to flicker.<br><br>Many CRTs will flicker - the refresh rate is typically from 60-85Hz. The LCD panel backlight might also flicker a bit too. I'm not sure about the OLED tech.<br><br>For the people who say you can't see the difference, just wave your hand in front of the screen. Then go out in daylight and wave your hand. Notice a difference?<br><br>Alternatively, look at the screen from the side of your eye - for many people the image will not appear to be as "stable" or "steady" as a wall.<br><br>2) For a lot of display tech, the blacks aren't very black, so to have a high contrast ratio they make the whites much brighter and that could hurt your eyes more (compare the brightness of your display's whites with the brightness of a piece of white paper held up next to it).<br><br>Apparently with OLEDs the blacks should be much blacker than LCD blacks. But I suspect they're still going to be blindingly bright.<br><br>Anyway, you could try turning the brightness down so that the standard white on your display is no brighter than the white on a sheet of paper. Alternatively change the colour scheme so that the "text background whites" aren't so bright - make them a darker grey.<br><br>I've got my brightness set to 10 out of 100, and the text bankground white is still brighter than white paper lit by the flourescent lamps above. 100/100 is really too bright<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) One other difference is the image/light from many screens tends to flicker.Many CRTs will flicker - the refresh rate is typically from 60-85Hz .
The LCD panel backlight might also flicker a bit too .
I 'm not sure about the OLED tech.For the people who say you ca n't see the difference , just wave your hand in front of the screen .
Then go out in daylight and wave your hand .
Notice a difference ? Alternatively , look at the screen from the side of your eye - for many people the image will not appear to be as " stable " or " steady " as a wall.2 ) For a lot of display tech , the blacks are n't very black , so to have a high contrast ratio they make the whites much brighter and that could hurt your eyes more ( compare the brightness of your display 's whites with the brightness of a piece of white paper held up next to it ) .Apparently with OLEDs the blacks should be much blacker than LCD blacks .
But I suspect they 're still going to be blindingly bright.Anyway , you could try turning the brightness down so that the standard white on your display is no brighter than the white on a sheet of paper .
Alternatively change the colour scheme so that the " text background whites " are n't so bright - make them a darker grey.I 've got my brightness set to 10 out of 100 , and the text bankground white is still brighter than white paper lit by the flourescent lamps above .
100/100 is really too bright : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) One other difference is the image/light from many screens tends to flicker.Many CRTs will flicker - the refresh rate is typically from 60-85Hz.
The LCD panel backlight might also flicker a bit too.
I'm not sure about the OLED tech.For the people who say you can't see the difference, just wave your hand in front of the screen.
Then go out in daylight and wave your hand.
Notice a difference?Alternatively, look at the screen from the side of your eye - for many people the image will not appear to be as "stable" or "steady" as a wall.2) For a lot of display tech, the blacks aren't very black, so to have a high contrast ratio they make the whites much brighter and that could hurt your eyes more (compare the brightness of your display's whites with the brightness of a piece of white paper held up next to it).Apparently with OLEDs the blacks should be much blacker than LCD blacks.
But I suspect they're still going to be blindingly bright.Anyway, you could try turning the brightness down so that the standard white on your display is no brighter than the white on a sheet of paper.
Alternatively change the colour scheme so that the "text background whites" aren't so bright - make them a darker grey.I've got my brightness set to 10 out of 100, and the text bankground white is still brighter than white paper lit by the flourescent lamps above.
100/100 is really too bright :).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732411</id>
	<title>My favorite quote. . .</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1247856360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"The method using surface plasmon represents a new technology to enhance the emission efficiency of OLED. It is expected to greatly contribute to the development of new technologies in OLED and flexible display, as well as securing original technology," --Prof. Choi</p></div></blockquote><p>Doesn't that just sound like something out of the Alpha Centauri tech tree?</p><p>Light emitting diodes tech is one of my favorite.  It and all the inventions which derive from it, makes life look and feel as though we're truly in, "The Future" as I imagined it while watching Buck Rogers back in my childhood.</p><p>-FL</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The method using surface plasmon represents a new technology to enhance the emission efficiency of OLED .
It is expected to greatly contribute to the development of new technologies in OLED and flexible display , as well as securing original technology , " --Prof. ChoiDoes n't that just sound like something out of the Alpha Centauri tech tree ? Light emitting diodes tech is one of my favorite .
It and all the inventions which derive from it , makes life look and feel as though we 're truly in , " The Future " as I imagined it while watching Buck Rogers back in my childhood.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The method using surface plasmon represents a new technology to enhance the emission efficiency of OLED.
It is expected to greatly contribute to the development of new technologies in OLED and flexible display, as well as securing original technology," --Prof. ChoiDoesn't that just sound like something out of the Alpha Centauri tech tree?Light emitting diodes tech is one of my favorite.
It and all the inventions which derive from it, makes life look and feel as though we're truly in, "The Future" as I imagined it while watching Buck Rogers back in my childhood.-FL
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729587</id>
	<title>Cooled OLED?</title>
	<author>PatLam</author>
	<datestamp>1247844600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now combine it with the new cooled LED technologie and you got a cooled OLED with less energy consumption and more efficienty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now combine it with the new cooled LED technologie and you got a cooled OLED with less energy consumption and more efficienty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now combine it with the new cooled LED technologie and you got a cooled OLED with less energy consumption and more efficienty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731113</id>
	<title>Re:That's all well and good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check out <a href="http://pixelqi.com/blog1" title="pixelqi.com" rel="nofollow">Pixel Qi's transflective screens</a> [pixelqi.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out Pixel Qi 's transflective screens [ pixelqi.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out Pixel Qi's transflective screens [pixelqi.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28736191</id>
	<title>Re:Any applications to TVs?</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1247832600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sony and LG both have plans to release OLED TVs within the next year. The new Sony TV is planned to be 27 inches, so large screen OLED displays could be on the horizon although it's probably a few more years out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony and LG both have plans to release OLED TVs within the next year .
The new Sony TV is planned to be 27 inches , so large screen OLED displays could be on the horizon although it 's probably a few more years out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony and LG both have plans to release OLED TVs within the next year.
The new Sony TV is planned to be 27 inches, so large screen OLED displays could be on the horizon although it's probably a few more years out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731405</id>
	<title>Can't wait...</title>
	<author>CFD339</author>
	<datestamp>1247852160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....To fly over in my fusion powered flying car to pick some up on the way to the drug store for my telomere repairing anti-cancer pills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....To fly over in my fusion powered flying car to pick some up on the way to the drug store for my telomere repairing anti-cancer pills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....To fly over in my fusion powered flying car to pick some up on the way to the drug store for my telomere repairing anti-cancer pills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729691</id>
	<title>Mommy! I want some Co Co Puffs!</title>
	<author>holmstar</author>
	<datestamp>1247845020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>And we're one step closer to animated cereal boxes...<br>
<br>
Oh joy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And we 're one step closer to animated cereal boxes.. . Oh joy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we're one step closer to animated cereal boxes...

Oh joy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730423</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good but...</title>
	<author>just fiddling around</author>
	<datestamp>1247847960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the major reasons why OLEDs are so interesting is because they are *not* vacuum-deposited, but <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic\_light-emitting\_diode#Advantages" title="wikipedia.org">deposited with ink-jet or screen printing techniques.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Of course, 75\% reduction of the already-small power consumption of OLEDs is probably worth it for mobile apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the major reasons why OLEDs are so interesting is because they are * not * vacuum-deposited , but deposited with ink-jet or screen printing techniques .
[ wikipedia.org ] Of course , 75 \ % reduction of the already-small power consumption of OLEDs is probably worth it for mobile apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the major reasons why OLEDs are so interesting is because they are *not* vacuum-deposited, but deposited with ink-jet or screen printing techniques.
[wikipedia.org]Of course, 75\% reduction of the already-small power consumption of OLEDs is probably worth it for mobile apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734065</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good but...</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1247864100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm..standard filament light bulbs operate in a vacuum.  The key is sealing it after you make it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm..standard filament light bulbs operate in a vacuum .
The key is sealing it after you make it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm..standard filament light bulbs operate in a vacuum.
The key is sealing it after you make it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729927</id>
	<title>Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1247845980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vacuum deposition is a reasonably common industrial process. Not absolutely trivial(high-vacuum pumps aren't cheap, and I'm sure maintaining the seals on a high-throughput system with a vacuum stage is a pain in the ass); but hardly more difficult than any of the other tricky processes that we run in massive volume every day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vacuum deposition is a reasonably common industrial process .
Not absolutely trivial ( high-vacuum pumps are n't cheap , and I 'm sure maintaining the seals on a high-throughput system with a vacuum stage is a pain in the ass ) ; but hardly more difficult than any of the other tricky processes that we run in massive volume every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vacuum deposition is a reasonably common industrial process.
Not absolutely trivial(high-vacuum pumps aren't cheap, and I'm sure maintaining the seals on a high-throughput system with a vacuum stage is a pain in the ass); but hardly more difficult than any of the other tricky processes that we run in massive volume every day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730871</id>
	<title>Re:bah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247849760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I want large (metre square) wall and ceiling lights to replace the point light sources with lampshades that I never like I currently use. That, and a dimmer function...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I want large ( metre square ) wall and ceiling lights to replace the point light sources with lampshades that I never like I currently use .
That , and a dimmer function.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I want large (metre square) wall and ceiling lights to replace the point light sources with lampshades that I never like I currently use.
That, and a dimmer function...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729775</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good but...</title>
	<author>KibibyteBrain</author>
	<datestamp>1247845320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many vapor and physical deposition processes in semiconductor manufacture take place in a high vacuum. Making OLEDs probably already requires a vacuum at one stage for such deposition. I would say the efficiency issues with this process hinge on cost, not energy, and even that seems quite manageable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many vapor and physical deposition processes in semiconductor manufacture take place in a high vacuum .
Making OLEDs probably already requires a vacuum at one stage for such deposition .
I would say the efficiency issues with this process hinge on cost , not energy , and even that seems quite manageable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many vapor and physical deposition processes in semiconductor manufacture take place in a high vacuum.
Making OLEDs probably already requires a vacuum at one stage for such deposition.
I would say the efficiency issues with this process hinge on cost, not energy, and even that seems quite manageable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28733921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28736191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28740883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28741381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28744127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28740839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28737857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_134207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28736191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729775
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730127
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731867
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732729
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28744127
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28740839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28740883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731751
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28733921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28741381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28734181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28730507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28731939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28732007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28737857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_134207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_134207.28729651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
