<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_07_047249</id>
	<title>Antimatter In Lightning</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257599700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>AMESN writes <i>"The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi\_Gamma-ray\_Space\_Telescope">Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope</a>, launched last year, detects gamma rays from light years away, but recently it <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/49288/title/Signature\_of\_antimatter\_detected\_in\_lightning">detected gamma rays from lightning on Earth</a>. And the energy of the gamma rays is specific to the decay of positrons, which are the antimatter flavor of electrons. Finding antimatter in lightning surprised researchers and suggests the electric field of the lightning somehow got reversed."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>AMESN writes " The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope , launched last year , detects gamma rays from light years away , but recently it detected gamma rays from lightning on Earth .
And the energy of the gamma rays is specific to the decay of positrons , which are the antimatter flavor of electrons .
Finding antimatter in lightning surprised researchers and suggests the electric field of the lightning somehow got reversed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMESN writes "The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, launched last year, detects gamma rays from light years away, but recently it detected gamma rays from lightning on Earth.
And the energy of the gamma rays is specific to the decay of positrons, which are the antimatter flavor of electrons.
Finding antimatter in lightning surprised researchers and suggests the electric field of the lightning somehow got reversed.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014020</id>
	<title>Wait, I'm confused...</title>
	<author>d3ac0n</author>
	<datestamp>1257605280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean that Star Trek style warp drive only works in an "Electric Universe"  physics model?  Or does it mean that we don't have to worry about crossing the streams once we reach 55mph?</p><p>Great Scott!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that Star Trek style warp drive only works in an " Electric Universe " physics model ?
Or does it mean that we do n't have to worry about crossing the streams once we reach 55mph ? Great Scott !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that Star Trek style warp drive only works in an "Electric Universe"  physics model?
Or does it mean that we don't have to worry about crossing the streams once we reach 55mph?Great Scott!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015086</id>
	<title>Re:This was first observed in 1971</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257618300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And, considering that lightning / thunderstorm related gamma rays are routinely observed with energies up to 10 MeV, there is plenty of energy to create positrons, and so I wouldn't be surprised if all of these reports included the positron annihilation line (or, at least the ones with sensitivity in that energy range). </p></div><p>Considering that pair production starts becoming significant at gamma energies above 5 MeV (threshold 1.022 MeV), I would be very surprised if there weren't some 0.511 MeV gammas from thunderstorms. It is also likely that the positrons could be formed by interaction between high energy electrons and matter.</p><p>

I would think that the gammas are produced in conjunction with sprites (cloud to ionosphere) rather than normal cloud to ground strokes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , considering that lightning / thunderstorm related gamma rays are routinely observed with energies up to 10 MeV , there is plenty of energy to create positrons , and so I would n't be surprised if all of these reports included the positron annihilation line ( or , at least the ones with sensitivity in that energy range ) .
Considering that pair production starts becoming significant at gamma energies above 5 MeV ( threshold 1.022 MeV ) , I would be very surprised if there were n't some 0.511 MeV gammas from thunderstorms .
It is also likely that the positrons could be formed by interaction between high energy electrons and matter .
I would think that the gammas are produced in conjunction with sprites ( cloud to ionosphere ) rather than normal cloud to ground strokes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, considering that lightning / thunderstorm related gamma rays are routinely observed with energies up to 10 MeV, there is plenty of energy to create positrons, and so I wouldn't be surprised if all of these reports included the positron annihilation line (or, at least the ones with sensitivity in that energy range).
Considering that pair production starts becoming significant at gamma energies above 5 MeV (threshold 1.022 MeV), I would be very surprised if there weren't some 0.511 MeV gammas from thunderstorms.
It is also likely that the positrons could be formed by interaction between high energy electrons and matter.
I would think that the gammas are produced in conjunction with sprites (cloud to ionosphere) rather than normal cloud to ground strokes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016236</id>
	<title>Re:This was first observed in 1971</title>
	<author>aynoknman</author>
	<datestamp>1257626040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not 1971, but actually 1955

It was actually observed first in 1955 when the positrons in the lightning strike were channeled through the flux capacitor to take Marty McFly back to the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not 1971 , but actually 1955 It was actually observed first in 1955 when the positrons in the lightning strike were channeled through the flux capacitor to take Marty McFly back to the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not 1971, but actually 1955

It was actually observed first in 1955 when the positrons in the lightning strike were channeled through the flux capacitor to take Marty McFly back to the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014436</id>
	<title>Whoa there, cart before horse?</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1257611880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could it be the other way around, that cosmic rays trigger lightning?   So the timing is just a coincidence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be the other way around , that cosmic rays trigger lightning ?
So the timing is just a coincidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be the other way around, that cosmic rays trigger lightning?
So the timing is just a coincidence?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015030</id>
	<title>Cross section of lightning?</title>
	<author>jasno</author>
	<datestamp>1257617940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone know what the cross section of a lightning bolt looks like?  I've always wondered if forces akin to the skin-effect are trying to spread out the electrons while it's constrained in a tube of plasma.  Is it round?  Is it a sheet?  What's the electron density like?  What sorts of pressures would you expect in the center of a bolt?</p><p>Just curious... but I'm unable to find a google hit and too dumb to simulate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know what the cross section of a lightning bolt looks like ?
I 've always wondered if forces akin to the skin-effect are trying to spread out the electrons while it 's constrained in a tube of plasma .
Is it round ?
Is it a sheet ?
What 's the electron density like ?
What sorts of pressures would you expect in the center of a bolt ? Just curious... but I 'm unable to find a google hit and too dumb to simulate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know what the cross section of a lightning bolt looks like?
I've always wondered if forces akin to the skin-effect are trying to spread out the electrons while it's constrained in a tube of plasma.
Is it round?
Is it a sheet?
What's the electron density like?
What sorts of pressures would you expect in the center of a bolt?Just curious... but I'm unable to find a google hit and too dumb to simulate it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013896</id>
	<title>According to this blinking light...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257603900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... lightning is made of electro-matter, matter's bad-ass grandma!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... lightning is made of electro-matter , matter 's bad-ass grandma !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... lightning is made of electro-matter, matter's bad-ass grandma!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014936</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa there, cart before horse?</title>
	<author>witch-doktor</author>
	<datestamp>1257617280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoa there, you're one step away from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">original explanation</a> [wikipedia.org] for thunder and lightning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa there , you 're one step away from the original explanation [ wikipedia.org ] for thunder and lightning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa there, you're one step away from the original explanation [wikipedia.org] for thunder and lightning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014000</id>
	<title>Time to modulate the shields</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257605040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the only way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the only way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the only way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30028120</id>
	<title>Re:reversal schmersal</title>
	<author>grimm26</author>
	<datestamp>1257695940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SCHWING!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SCHWING !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SCHWING!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013962</id>
	<title>doc-brown-can-now-power-his-TIME-MACHINE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257604500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's Zefram Cochrane who "invented" the warp drive (didn't explain what was used to power it), Doc Brown needed the lightning for his "flux capacitor".</p><p>My geekiness is showing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Zefram Cochrane who " invented " the warp drive ( did n't explain what was used to power it ) , Doc Brown needed the lightning for his " flux capacitor " .My geekiness is showing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Zefram Cochrane who "invented" the warp drive (didn't explain what was used to power it), Doc Brown needed the lightning for his "flux capacitor".My geekiness is showing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014484</id>
	<title>Re:reversal schmersal</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257612480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fusion reactions seem more likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fusion reactions seem more likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fusion reactions seem more likely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013910</id>
	<title>Reversing the polarity of the electron discharge?</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1257604020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The decay of positrons in the largescale discharge of electronic particles may very well lead to gamma ray emissions, however it is crucial to understand the energy output required to reverse the polarity of the discharge so that we can reproduce the phenomenon in a controlled laboratory.</p><p>Or else the Romulans will destroy the Federation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The decay of positrons in the largescale discharge of electronic particles may very well lead to gamma ray emissions , however it is crucial to understand the energy output required to reverse the polarity of the discharge so that we can reproduce the phenomenon in a controlled laboratory.Or else the Romulans will destroy the Federation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The decay of positrons in the largescale discharge of electronic particles may very well lead to gamma ray emissions, however it is crucial to understand the energy output required to reverse the polarity of the discharge so that we can reproduce the phenomenon in a controlled laboratory.Or else the Romulans will destroy the Federation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014044</id>
	<title>Not that surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257605760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently they've detected gamma ray energies up to 20 MeV from thunderstorms, so given that amount of energy involved I wouldn't think it's that surprising that electron-positron pairs might be created in the process since an electron only has a mass of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.511 MeV. The thunderstorms are basically operating like natural linear accelerators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently they 've detected gamma ray energies up to 20 MeV from thunderstorms , so given that amount of energy involved I would n't think it 's that surprising that electron-positron pairs might be created in the process since an electron only has a mass of .511 MeV .
The thunderstorms are basically operating like natural linear accelerators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently they've detected gamma ray energies up to 20 MeV from thunderstorms, so given that amount of energy involved I wouldn't think it's that surprising that electron-positron pairs might be created in the process since an electron only has a mass of .511 MeV.
The thunderstorms are basically operating like natural linear accelerators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015492</id>
	<title>Re:reversal schmersal</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257620820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's always been my understanding (well, since I was a pre-teen or so) that lightning is not a one-way process. My understanding is that the current flow does indeed reverse several times during a strike, that it's A/C and not D/C. Commentary?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always been my understanding ( well , since I was a pre-teen or so ) that lightning is not a one-way process .
My understanding is that the current flow does indeed reverse several times during a strike , that it 's A/C and not D/C .
Commentary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always been my understanding (well, since I was a pre-teen or so) that lightning is not a one-way process.
My understanding is that the current flow does indeed reverse several times during a strike, that it's A/C and not D/C.
Commentary?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30019602</id>
	<title>Re:what exactly did they detect?</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1257621720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any second year physics major should be able to tell you the electric field required in a plasma for electron positron pair production.  The calculation is easy in a near vacuum.  At atmospheric pressure it's a bit more difficult, but not that much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any second year physics major should be able to tell you the electric field required in a plasma for electron positron pair production .
The calculation is easy in a near vacuum .
At atmospheric pressure it 's a bit more difficult , but not that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any second year physics major should be able to tell you the electric field required in a plasma for electron positron pair production.
The calculation is easy in a near vacuum.
At atmospheric pressure it's a bit more difficult, but not that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016186</id>
	<title>positrons do not decay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257625620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that positrons don't decay, even though the summary says they do.  Positrons are stable, but they can annihilate with electrons to produce two photons.  (At higher energies, the annihilation can produce other particles instead of photons.)  But, decay they do not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that positrons do n't decay , even though the summary says they do .
Positrons are stable , but they can annihilate with electrons to produce two photons .
( At higher energies , the annihilation can produce other particles instead of photons .
) But , decay they do not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that positrons don't decay, even though the summary says they do.
Positrons are stable, but they can annihilate with electrons to produce two photons.
(At higher energies, the annihilation can produce other particles instead of photons.
)  But, decay they do not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015632</id>
	<title>Re:Reversing the polarity of the electron discharg</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1257621840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just out of curiosity, (and sorry for derailing the thread) who is spending these billions of dollars to build and repair the LHC?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just out of curiosity , ( and sorry for derailing the thread ) who is spending these billions of dollars to build and repair the LHC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just out of curiosity, (and sorry for derailing the thread) who is spending these billions of dollars to build and repair the LHC?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30020704</id>
	<title>Re:Cross section of lightning?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257686460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AFAIK, the skin effect is only due to AC currents (lightning is DC), and creates lower electron densities towards the center of wires.  In DC, the electrons spread out evenly to minimize any pressure spots, much like an ideal vapor does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK , the skin effect is only due to AC currents ( lightning is DC ) , and creates lower electron densities towards the center of wires .
In DC , the electrons spread out evenly to minimize any pressure spots , much like an ideal vapor does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK, the skin effect is only due to AC currents (lightning is DC), and creates lower electron densities towards the center of wires.
In DC, the electrons spread out evenly to minimize any pressure spots, much like an ideal vapor does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014130</id>
	<title>Re:what exactly did they detect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257607020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...it could also mean the direct conversion of electrons to energy by some other unexplained means.</p></div><p>then for that energy we would need 2 electrons, not one.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Either way, it would be a hell of a discovery, potentially leading to matter-to-energy conversion power generation.  To hell with fusion power, this is better!</p></div><p>well isn't fusion a way of matter-to-energy conversion power generator?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...it could also mean the direct conversion of electrons to energy by some other unexplained means.then for that energy we would need 2 electrons , not one.Either way , it would be a hell of a discovery , potentially leading to matter-to-energy conversion power generation .
To hell with fusion power , this is better ! well is n't fusion a way of matter-to-energy conversion power generator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it could also mean the direct conversion of electrons to energy by some other unexplained means.then for that energy we would need 2 electrons, not one.Either way, it would be a hell of a discovery, potentially leading to matter-to-energy conversion power generation.
To hell with fusion power, this is better!well isn't fusion a way of matter-to-energy conversion power generator?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013970</id>
	<title>Re:just wondering...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257604620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The purpose of LHC is not to find antimatter (at least not primarily). It's purpose is to find the higgs boson and you don't need LHC to make antimatter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The purpose of LHC is not to find antimatter ( at least not primarily ) .
It 's purpose is to find the higgs boson and you do n't need LHC to make antimatter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The purpose of LHC is not to find antimatter (at least not primarily).
It's purpose is to find the higgs boson and you don't need LHC to make antimatter</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052</id>
	<title>reversal schmersal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257605820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Antimatter in lightning does not suggest that the electric field got reversed; that's nonsense.  The electric field is a vector, and it can point in any direction.</p><p>What it does suggest is either that the few positrons created or brought by cosmic rays are somehow concentrated by lightning, or that the strong electric fields in lightning are actually pulling a few positron-electron pairs out of the quantum electrodynamic vacuum.  The first explanation is probably ruled out unless positron decay gamma rays are also seen all over in the atmosphere, just not as densely concentrated as in lightning.</p><p>The second explanation is perfectly possible, if the electric fields in lightning are simply strong enough over large enough volumes of space.  Any potential difference greater than 2 m c^2/e will in theory produce positrons and electrons from nothing; this is called 'the Schwinger Effect'.   But the rate is ridiculously low unless the field is enormous, and it has not yet been observed.  Relatively straightforward calculations would allow one to estimate what sort of electric fields lightning would need to involve, for the observations to be due to the Schwinger Effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Antimatter in lightning does not suggest that the electric field got reversed ; that 's nonsense .
The electric field is a vector , and it can point in any direction.What it does suggest is either that the few positrons created or brought by cosmic rays are somehow concentrated by lightning , or that the strong electric fields in lightning are actually pulling a few positron-electron pairs out of the quantum electrodynamic vacuum .
The first explanation is probably ruled out unless positron decay gamma rays are also seen all over in the atmosphere , just not as densely concentrated as in lightning.The second explanation is perfectly possible , if the electric fields in lightning are simply strong enough over large enough volumes of space .
Any potential difference greater than 2 m c ^ 2/e will in theory produce positrons and electrons from nothing ; this is called 'the Schwinger Effect' .
But the rate is ridiculously low unless the field is enormous , and it has not yet been observed .
Relatively straightforward calculations would allow one to estimate what sort of electric fields lightning would need to involve , for the observations to be due to the Schwinger Effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Antimatter in lightning does not suggest that the electric field got reversed; that's nonsense.
The electric field is a vector, and it can point in any direction.What it does suggest is either that the few positrons created or brought by cosmic rays are somehow concentrated by lightning, or that the strong electric fields in lightning are actually pulling a few positron-electron pairs out of the quantum electrodynamic vacuum.
The first explanation is probably ruled out unless positron decay gamma rays are also seen all over in the atmosphere, just not as densely concentrated as in lightning.The second explanation is perfectly possible, if the electric fields in lightning are simply strong enough over large enough volumes of space.
Any potential difference greater than 2 m c^2/e will in theory produce positrons and electrons from nothing; this is called 'the Schwinger Effect'.
But the rate is ridiculously low unless the field is enormous, and it has not yet been observed.
Relatively straightforward calculations would allow one to estimate what sort of electric fields lightning would need to involve, for the observations to be due to the Schwinger Effect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014302</id>
	<title>Re:This was first observed in 1971</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1257609960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am in Japan, and jet-lagged - I mean to say</p><p>Now, not all of these <b>abstracts</b> report include a positron annihilation signature at 511 KeV.</p><p>I have read these papers (and others) and IIRC  511 KeV reports are fairly common, but I don't have them in front of me to be sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am in Japan , and jet-lagged - I mean to sayNow , not all of these abstracts report include a positron annihilation signature at 511 KeV.I have read these papers ( and others ) and IIRC 511 KeV reports are fairly common , but I do n't have them in front of me to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am in Japan, and jet-lagged - I mean to sayNow, not all of these abstracts report include a positron annihilation signature at 511 KeV.I have read these papers (and others) and IIRC  511 KeV reports are fairly common, but I don't have them in front of me to be sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013912</id>
	<title>of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257604020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anti-matter is required to provide so many jigga...</p><p>sorry!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anti-matter is required to provide so many jigga...sorry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anti-matter is required to provide so many jigga...sorry!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018</id>
	<title>what exactly did they detect?</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1257605280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article isn't clear about what they say they've detected.  If it's the 511 KeV signature of electron-positron annihilation, then yes, it could mean the presence of antimatter; it could also mean the direct conversion of electrons to energy by some other unexplained means.</p><p>Either way, it would be a hell of a discovery, potentially leading to matter-to-energy conversion power generation.  To hell with fusion power, this is better!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is n't clear about what they say they 've detected .
If it 's the 511 KeV signature of electron-positron annihilation , then yes , it could mean the presence of antimatter ; it could also mean the direct conversion of electrons to energy by some other unexplained means.Either way , it would be a hell of a discovery , potentially leading to matter-to-energy conversion power generation .
To hell with fusion power , this is better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article isn't clear about what they say they've detected.
If it's the 511 KeV signature of electron-positron annihilation, then yes, it could mean the presence of antimatter; it could also mean the direct conversion of electrons to energy by some other unexplained means.Either way, it would be a hell of a discovery, potentially leading to matter-to-energy conversion power generation.
To hell with fusion power, this is better!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014876</id>
	<title>Re:Reversing the polarity of the electron discharg</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1257616680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who watches Star Trek knows that any time you want to solve technical problems or achieve new developments, all you need to do is reverse the polarity or invert the phase. Why didn't the folks behind the LHC try this? It's have saved billions of dollars and years of delays!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who watches Star Trek knows that any time you want to solve technical problems or achieve new developments , all you need to do is reverse the polarity or invert the phase .
Why did n't the folks behind the LHC try this ?
It 's have saved billions of dollars and years of delays !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who watches Star Trek knows that any time you want to solve technical problems or achieve new developments, all you need to do is reverse the polarity or invert the phase.
Why didn't the folks behind the LHC try this?
It's have saved billions of dollars and years of delays!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014204</id>
	<title>Isn't scientific discovery great?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257608160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think all our hopes and dreams are found right here in this solar system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think all our hopes and dreams are found right here in this solar system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think all our hopes and dreams are found right here in this solar system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016160</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>kitsunewarlock</author>
	<datestamp>1257625500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What were the odds of that?  Seems as unlikely as getting hit by...well you know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What were the odds of that ?
Seems as unlikely as getting hit by...well you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What were the odds of that?
Seems as unlikely as getting hit by...well you know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30018814</id>
	<title>Re:Reversing the polarity of the electron discharg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257610320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.answerbag.com/q\_view/838059" title="answerbag.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.answerbag.com/q\_view/838059</a> [answerbag.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.answerbag.com/q \ _view/838059 [ answerbag.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.answerbag.com/q\_view/838059 [answerbag.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30019272</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa there, cart before horse?</title>
	<author>TropicalCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1257616200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Could it be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that cosmic rays trigger lightning?</p></div></blockquote><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic\_ray" title="wikipedia.org">According to Wikipedia:</a> [wikipedia.org] "Cosmic rays have been implicated in the triggering of electrical breakdown in lightning. It has been proposed that essentially all lightning is triggered through a relativistic process, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway\_breakdown" title="wikipedia.org">"runaway breakdown"</a> [wikipedia.org], seeded by cosmic ray secondaries. Subsequent development of the lightning discharge then occurs through "conventional breakdown" mechanisms."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be ... that cosmic rays trigger lightning ?
According to Wikipedia : [ wikipedia.org ] " Cosmic rays have been implicated in the triggering of electrical breakdown in lightning .
It has been proposed that essentially all lightning is triggered through a relativistic process , " runaway breakdown " [ wikipedia.org ] , seeded by cosmic ray secondaries .
Subsequent development of the lightning discharge then occurs through " conventional breakdown " mechanisms .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be ... that cosmic rays trigger lightning?
According to Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org] "Cosmic rays have been implicated in the triggering of electrical breakdown in lightning.
It has been proposed that essentially all lightning is triggered through a relativistic process, "runaway breakdown" [wikipedia.org], seeded by cosmic ray secondaries.
Subsequent development of the lightning discharge then occurs through "conventional breakdown" mechanisms.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015028</id>
	<title>I smell a weapons research initiative...</title>
	<author>rpauli</author>
	<datestamp>1257617940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...call the contract lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...call the contract lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...call the contract lawyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014098</id>
	<title>It's obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257606480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&lt;tinfoil&gt;<br>How else does <a href="http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/tesla/ballgtn.html" title="eskimo.com" rel="nofollow">ball lightning</a> [eskimo.com] float?<br>&lt;/tinfoil&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How else does ball lightning [ eskimo.com ] float ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How else does ball lightning [eskimo.com] float?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016344</id>
	<title>Re:positrons vs electrons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257627240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When a positron decays, it actually recombines with an electron and all mass is converted to energy again, in the form of two photons of 511keV that travel in opposite directions. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron\_emission\_tomography]Positron emission tomography[/url] is based on this concept by the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When a positron decays , it actually recombines with an electron and all mass is converted to energy again , in the form of two photons of 511keV that travel in opposite directions .
[ url = http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron \ _emission \ _tomography ] Positron emission tomography [ /url ] is based on this concept by the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a positron decays, it actually recombines with an electron and all mass is converted to energy again, in the form of two photons of 511keV that travel in opposite directions.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron\_emission\_tomography]Positron emission tomography[/url] is based on this concept by the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014074</id>
	<title>"other means" would be more than "unexplained"...</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1257606060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're detecting 511KeV gammas generated by "the direct conversion of electrons to energy" not involving positrons, then, yeah, it <i>would</i> be a hell of a discovery, seeing as how it would blow away all those stodgy conservation laws and symmetries and whatnot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're detecting 511KeV gammas generated by " the direct conversion of electrons to energy " not involving positrons , then , yeah , it would be a hell of a discovery , seeing as how it would blow away all those stodgy conservation laws and symmetries and whatnot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're detecting 511KeV gammas generated by "the direct conversion of electrons to energy" not involving positrons, then, yeah, it would be a hell of a discovery, seeing as how it would blow away all those stodgy conservation laws and symmetries and whatnot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014132</id>
	<title>This was first observed in 1971</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257607080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It&rsquo;s a surprise to have found the signature of positrons during a lightning storm, Briggs said.</i></p><p>No, it's not.</p><p>There is a long history of observations and theorizing about gamma ray flashes from lightning strikes and ball lightning, starting in the early 1970's :</p><p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v230/n5290/pdf/230180a0.pdf" title="nature.com">Is Ball Lightning caused by Antimatter Meteorites?</a> [nature.com]<br>D. E. T. F. ASHBY, C. WHITEHEAD, Nature 230, 180-182 (19 March 1971).</p><p>This has also been observed in connection with "<a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JGR...10628841L" title="harvard.edu">sprites</a> [harvard.edu]".</p><p>And from <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2947" title="arxiv.org">thunderclouds</a> [arxiv.org] <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0781" title="arxiv.org">without lightning</a> [arxiv.org].</p><p>Oh, and it's also been observed from space before :</p><p><a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFMAE53A..10S" title="harvard.edu">RHESSI Observations of Terrestrial Gamma-Ray Flashes</a> [harvard.edu]</p><p>Now, not all of these reports include a positron annihilation signature at 511 KeV. But,  511 KeV emissions were explicitly reported from lightning <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v250/n5468/abs/250637a0.html" title="nature.com">in the 1970's</a> [nature.com]. And, considering that lightning / thunderstorm related gamma rays are routinely observed with energies up to 10 MeV, there is plenty of energy to create positrons, and so I wouldn't be surprised if <b>all</b> of these reports included the positron annihilation line (or, at least the ones with sensitivity in that energy range).<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s a surprise to have found the signature of positrons during a lightning storm , Briggs said.No , it 's not.There is a long history of observations and theorizing about gamma ray flashes from lightning strikes and ball lightning , starting in the early 1970 's : Is Ball Lightning caused by Antimatter Meteorites ?
[ nature.com ] D. E. T. F. ASHBY , C. WHITEHEAD , Nature 230 , 180-182 ( 19 March 1971 ) .This has also been observed in connection with " sprites [ harvard.edu ] " .And from thunderclouds [ arxiv.org ] without lightning [ arxiv.org ] .Oh , and it 's also been observed from space before : RHESSI Observations of Terrestrial Gamma-Ray Flashes [ harvard.edu ] Now , not all of these reports include a positron annihilation signature at 511 KeV .
But , 511 KeV emissions were explicitly reported from lightning in the 1970 's [ nature.com ] .
And , considering that lightning / thunderstorm related gamma rays are routinely observed with energies up to 10 MeV , there is plenty of energy to create positrons , and so I would n't be surprised if all of these reports included the positron annihilation line ( or , at least the ones with sensitivity in that energy range ) .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s a surprise to have found the signature of positrons during a lightning storm, Briggs said.No, it's not.There is a long history of observations and theorizing about gamma ray flashes from lightning strikes and ball lightning, starting in the early 1970's :Is Ball Lightning caused by Antimatter Meteorites?
[nature.com]D. E. T. F. ASHBY, C. WHITEHEAD, Nature 230, 180-182 (19 March 1971).This has also been observed in connection with "sprites [harvard.edu]".And from thunderclouds [arxiv.org] without lightning [arxiv.org].Oh, and it's also been observed from space before :RHESSI Observations of Terrestrial Gamma-Ray Flashes [harvard.edu]Now, not all of these reports include a positron annihilation signature at 511 KeV.
But,  511 KeV emissions were explicitly reported from lightning in the 1970's [nature.com].
And, considering that lightning / thunderstorm related gamma rays are routinely observed with energies up to 10 MeV, there is plenty of energy to create positrons, and so I wouldn't be surprised if all of these reports included the positron annihilation line (or, at least the ones with sensitivity in that energy range).
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016776</id>
	<title>Re:Cross section of lightning?</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1257588480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The acoustics of thunder offer some insight into this.  It definitely has area to its cross-section or thunder would be much quieter and bi-directional instead of omnidirectional.  The pressure is comparatively quantifiable by measuring the SPL of the thunder from a distance, apply inverse square law, etc.  Perhaps you can get to electron density from there.</p><p>The shape of the cross-section of lightning could be measured reasonably accurately by recording a thunderstorm from multiple locations and determining if the sound emissions are in fact uniformly omnidirectional or not.  If the location of lightning strikes can be accurately triangulated from the recordings, the cross-section is circular.</p><p>I expect the cross-section would be for the mostpart circular, since there is no conductive conduit apart from the air and rain.  The electrons will want to be away from each other, but need to be close enough to energize the air to become a conductive conduit instead of a dielectric.  Same reason atomic electron orbits are spherical.</p><p>The acoustics of nuclear physics... *flexes nerd muscles*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The acoustics of thunder offer some insight into this .
It definitely has area to its cross-section or thunder would be much quieter and bi-directional instead of omnidirectional .
The pressure is comparatively quantifiable by measuring the SPL of the thunder from a distance , apply inverse square law , etc .
Perhaps you can get to electron density from there.The shape of the cross-section of lightning could be measured reasonably accurately by recording a thunderstorm from multiple locations and determining if the sound emissions are in fact uniformly omnidirectional or not .
If the location of lightning strikes can be accurately triangulated from the recordings , the cross-section is circular.I expect the cross-section would be for the mostpart circular , since there is no conductive conduit apart from the air and rain .
The electrons will want to be away from each other , but need to be close enough to energize the air to become a conductive conduit instead of a dielectric .
Same reason atomic electron orbits are spherical.The acoustics of nuclear physics... * flexes nerd muscles *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The acoustics of thunder offer some insight into this.
It definitely has area to its cross-section or thunder would be much quieter and bi-directional instead of omnidirectional.
The pressure is comparatively quantifiable by measuring the SPL of the thunder from a distance, apply inverse square law, etc.
Perhaps you can get to electron density from there.The shape of the cross-section of lightning could be measured reasonably accurately by recording a thunderstorm from multiple locations and determining if the sound emissions are in fact uniformly omnidirectional or not.
If the location of lightning strikes can be accurately triangulated from the recordings, the cross-section is circular.I expect the cross-section would be for the mostpart circular, since there is no conductive conduit apart from the air and rain.
The electrons will want to be away from each other, but need to be close enough to energize the air to become a conductive conduit instead of a dielectric.
Same reason atomic electron orbits are spherical.The acoustics of nuclear physics... *flexes nerd muscles*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014064</id>
	<title>Been looking a long time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257606000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Researchers have been looking for the tell-tale 0.511 MeV photons for decades in lightning storms. The idea is that a lightning channel could act like a natural particle accelerator. So electron-positron pairs could be created. But they have never been seen before from what I understand. But maybe these particles were created in much larger lightning bolts or perhaps the emissions are preferentially directed upwards into space<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... dunno. Very interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Researchers have been looking for the tell-tale 0.511 MeV photons for decades in lightning storms .
The idea is that a lightning channel could act like a natural particle accelerator .
So electron-positron pairs could be created .
But they have never been seen before from what I understand .
But maybe these particles were created in much larger lightning bolts or perhaps the emissions are preferentially directed upwards into space ... dunno. Very interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Researchers have been looking for the tell-tale 0.511 MeV photons for decades in lightning storms.
The idea is that a lightning channel could act like a natural particle accelerator.
So electron-positron pairs could be created.
But they have never been seen before from what I understand.
But maybe these particles were created in much larger lightning bolts or perhaps the emissions are preferentially directed upwards into space ... dunno. Very interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014790</id>
	<title>Re:what exactly did they detect?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1257615960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the first paragraph of the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>During its first 14 months of operation, the flying observatory has detected 17 gamma-ray flashes associated with terrestrial storms -- and some of those flashes have contained a surprising signature of antimatter.</p></div><p>In other words, they have detected 17 gamma-ray flashes due to lightning, and some of them have the signature of antimatter (i.e. the electron-positron annihilation).</p><p>I'm not sure how that's not exactly what you're saying they didn't say.  Just because they didn't say 511 KeV?  If 511 KeV is the signature of electron-positron antimatter collitions, and they've found the signature of antimatter collisions in some (not all) of the storms, wouldn't that suggest they are seeing 511 KeV bursts?</p><p>Here's more:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>During two recent lightning storms, Fermi recorded gamma-ray emissions of a particular energy that could have been produced only by the decay of energetic positrons, the antimatter equivalent of electrons.</p></div><p>It seems pretty specific about what they are seeing, it is simply stated in a high-level language that the common interested-but-not-knowledgeable reader can understand.</p><p>This is essentially an online science news magazine, not a journal for published papers seeking peer review.  They are only going to give you the gist of the information at a high-level, and from there if you have better knowledge of the subject you should have an automatic deeper insight into what they might be seeing.</p><p>It's not like it's some amature job either, the space telescope was built to find this sort of thing, so finding these signatures is not like some wack job pop-sci company pushing nonsense in a press conference to attract investors before folding in a few years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the first paragraph of the article : During its first 14 months of operation , the flying observatory has detected 17 gamma-ray flashes associated with terrestrial storms -- and some of those flashes have contained a surprising signature of antimatter.In other words , they have detected 17 gamma-ray flashes due to lightning , and some of them have the signature of antimatter ( i.e .
the electron-positron annihilation ) .I 'm not sure how that 's not exactly what you 're saying they did n't say .
Just because they did n't say 511 KeV ?
If 511 KeV is the signature of electron-positron antimatter collitions , and they 've found the signature of antimatter collisions in some ( not all ) of the storms , would n't that suggest they are seeing 511 KeV bursts ? Here 's more : During two recent lightning storms , Fermi recorded gamma-ray emissions of a particular energy that could have been produced only by the decay of energetic positrons , the antimatter equivalent of electrons.It seems pretty specific about what they are seeing , it is simply stated in a high-level language that the common interested-but-not-knowledgeable reader can understand.This is essentially an online science news magazine , not a journal for published papers seeking peer review .
They are only going to give you the gist of the information at a high-level , and from there if you have better knowledge of the subject you should have an automatic deeper insight into what they might be seeing.It 's not like it 's some amature job either , the space telescope was built to find this sort of thing , so finding these signatures is not like some wack job pop-sci company pushing nonsense in a press conference to attract investors before folding in a few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the first paragraph of the article:During its first 14 months of operation, the flying observatory has detected 17 gamma-ray flashes associated with terrestrial storms -- and some of those flashes have contained a surprising signature of antimatter.In other words, they have detected 17 gamma-ray flashes due to lightning, and some of them have the signature of antimatter (i.e.
the electron-positron annihilation).I'm not sure how that's not exactly what you're saying they didn't say.
Just because they didn't say 511 KeV?
If 511 KeV is the signature of electron-positron antimatter collitions, and they've found the signature of antimatter collisions in some (not all) of the storms, wouldn't that suggest they are seeing 511 KeV bursts?Here's more:During two recent lightning storms, Fermi recorded gamma-ray emissions of a particular energy that could have been produced only by the decay of energetic positrons, the antimatter equivalent of electrons.It seems pretty specific about what they are seeing, it is simply stated in a high-level language that the common interested-but-not-knowledgeable reader can understand.This is essentially an online science news magazine, not a journal for published papers seeking peer review.
They are only going to give you the gist of the information at a high-level, and from there if you have better knowledge of the subject you should have an automatic deeper insight into what they might be seeing.It's not like it's some amature job either, the space telescope was built to find this sort of thing, so finding these signatures is not like some wack job pop-sci company pushing nonsense in a press conference to attract investors before folding in a few years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30020134</id>
	<title>Re:Cross section of lightning?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257676920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone know what the cross section of a lightning bolt looks like?</p></div><p>While what is constrained in the tube plasma.  The skin-effect or the electrons.  Maybe I'm not understanding; I'm a little tired right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know what the cross section of a lightning bolt looks like ? While what is constrained in the tube plasma .
The skin-effect or the electrons .
Maybe I 'm not understanding ; I 'm a little tired right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know what the cross section of a lightning bolt looks like?While what is constrained in the tube plasma.
The skin-effect or the electrons.
Maybe I'm not understanding; I'm a little tired right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30020282</id>
	<title>Re:Cross section of lightning?</title>
	<author>HydroPhonic</author>
	<datestamp>1257679380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone know what the cross section of a lightning bolt looks like?</p></div><p>I hear Benjamin Franklin does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know what the cross section of a lightning bolt looks like ? I hear Benjamin Franklin does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know what the cross section of a lightning bolt looks like?I hear Benjamin Franklin does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014226</id>
	<title>Re:This was first observed in 1971</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257608580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pair production in energetic plasmas is well known. Example:</p><p>http://www.springerlink.com/content/c7m0606n40840552/</p><p>So why not in the highly energetic plasma created by a lightning strike?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pair production in energetic plasmas is well known .
Example : http : //www.springerlink.com/content/c7m0606n40840552/So why not in the highly energetic plasma created by a lightning strike ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pair production in energetic plasmas is well known.
Example:http://www.springerlink.com/content/c7m0606n40840552/So why not in the highly energetic plasma created by a lightning strike?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30025096</id>
	<title>Re:what exactly did they detect?</title>
	<author>frozen\_kangaroo</author>
	<datestamp>1257674700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it would be a surprise if antimatter was not discovered in a lightening flash.   Gamma rays up to 20 MeV have been discovered there.  I think they are technically X-rays, not gamma rays because they are not coming from the nucleus of an atom, they are coming from accelerated free electrons.
<p>
Gamma rays of energy &gt; 1.022 MeV ( i.e. 2 x 511keV, the mass of an electron) can decay to form an electron-positron pair in the presence of another atom.    <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter\_creation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter\_creation</a> [wikipedia.org] 
</p><p>  If this happens (which it should) , then positrons will be present in the storm.
</p><p> Positrons decay by a reverse process to the above, meeting an electron and decaying into two gamma rays of 511keV back-to-back.  Spotting these 511keV photons is the classic signature for "anti-matter".   <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-positron\_annihilation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-positron\_annihilation</a> [wikipedia.org] .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it would be a surprise if antimatter was not discovered in a lightening flash .
Gamma rays up to 20 MeV have been discovered there .
I think they are technically X-rays , not gamma rays because they are not coming from the nucleus of an atom , they are coming from accelerated free electrons .
Gamma rays of energy &gt; 1.022 MeV ( i.e .
2 x 511keV , the mass of an electron ) can decay to form an electron-positron pair in the presence of another atom .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter \ _creation [ wikipedia.org ] If this happens ( which it should ) , then positrons will be present in the storm .
Positrons decay by a reverse process to the above , meeting an electron and decaying into two gamma rays of 511keV back-to-back .
Spotting these 511keV photons is the classic signature for " anti-matter " .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-positron \ _annihilation [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it would be a surprise if antimatter was not discovered in a lightening flash.
Gamma rays up to 20 MeV have been discovered there.
I think they are technically X-rays, not gamma rays because they are not coming from the nucleus of an atom, they are coming from accelerated free electrons.
Gamma rays of energy &gt; 1.022 MeV ( i.e.
2 x 511keV, the mass of an electron) can decay to form an electron-positron pair in the presence of another atom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter\_creation [wikipedia.org] 
  If this happens (which it should) , then positrons will be present in the storm.
Positrons decay by a reverse process to the above, meeting an electron and decaying into two gamma rays of 511keV back-to-back.
Spotting these 511keV photons is the classic signature for "anti-matter".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-positron\_annihilation [wikipedia.org] .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014314</id>
	<title>Re:reversal schmersal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257610080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of people don't know that Schwinger himself was also very entertaining at dinner parties, and a bit of a lothario. Hence the term sha-wing!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people do n't know that Schwinger himself was also very entertaining at dinner parties , and a bit of a lothario .
Hence the term sha-wing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people don't know that Schwinger himself was also very entertaining at dinner parties, and a bit of a lothario.
Hence the term sha-wing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016366</id>
	<title>Re:reversal schmersal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257627420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this is called 'the Schwinger Effect'. </p></div><p>Please note that this is the Schwinger Effect in high energy particle physics, not to be confused with the Swinger Effect in chemistry (where molecules bond freely with different other molecules).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is called 'the Schwinger Effect' .
Please note that this is the Schwinger Effect in high energy particle physics , not to be confused with the Swinger Effect in chemistry ( where molecules bond freely with different other molecules ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is called 'the Schwinger Effect'.
Please note that this is the Schwinger Effect in high energy particle physics, not to be confused with the Swinger Effect in chemistry (where molecules bond freely with different other molecules).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014454</id>
	<title>Re:what exactly did they detect?</title>
	<author>Bruha</author>
	<datestamp>1257612060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, of all our technology to produce power it still involves boiling water.</p><p>Tapping these nuclear sources directly would be a step forward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , of all our technology to produce power it still involves boiling water.Tapping these nuclear sources directly would be a step forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, of all our technology to produce power it still involves boiling water.Tapping these nuclear sources directly would be a step forward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30020466</id>
	<title>The green question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257682740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How we come so far not having any Hulk related jokes, people!?</p><p>It's 'gamma ray' flashes!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How we come so far not having any Hulk related jokes , people !
? It 's 'gamma ray ' flashes ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How we come so far not having any Hulk related jokes, people!
?It's 'gamma ray' flashes!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015440</id>
	<title>Positrons and Lightning</title>
	<author>rouge86</author>
	<datestamp>1257620520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How are positrons in lightning any different that upper atmosphere lightning such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper-atmospheric\_lightning#Sprites" title="wikipedia.org">sprites</a> [wikipedia.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How are positrons in lightning any different that upper atmosphere lightning such as sprites [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are positrons in lightning any different that upper atmosphere lightning such as sprites [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30017684</id>
	<title>Re:The forums are full of scientists</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1257597480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find it so funny that, everytime a piece of news is posted here about someone discovering something fascinating to the scientific community, there's always a group of people that already knew about it/didn't find the discovery so relevant/etc. These people usually write long posts with technical vocabulary unfolding the misteries of the discovery to everyone...</p></div><p>...and some of us find this one of the most valuable parts of Slashdot.  If you want <i>uninformed</i> commentary, there are usually at least a few subthreads full of it on any given topic here, and there are LOTS of other sites better suited for your needs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it so funny that , everytime a piece of news is posted here about someone discovering something fascinating to the scientific community , there 's always a group of people that already knew about it/did n't find the discovery so relevant/etc .
These people usually write long posts with technical vocabulary unfolding the misteries of the discovery to everyone......and some of us find this one of the most valuable parts of Slashdot .
If you want uninformed commentary , there are usually at least a few subthreads full of it on any given topic here , and there are LOTS of other sites better suited for your needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it so funny that, everytime a piece of news is posted here about someone discovering something fascinating to the scientific community, there's always a group of people that already knew about it/didn't find the discovery so relevant/etc.
These people usually write long posts with technical vocabulary unfolding the misteries of the discovery to everyone......and some of us find this one of the most valuable parts of Slashdot.
If you want uninformed commentary, there are usually at least a few subthreads full of it on any given topic here, and there are LOTS of other sites better suited for your needs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30017310</id>
	<title>Re:reversal schmersal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257593880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As for the basic physics, I think we actually understand it.  It's in some ways more pedestrian than pulling pairs directly out of the vacuum (that would require a much higher electric field, I think).  It goes like this:  1) electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field.  2) when the electrons pass near a nucleus (of an atom in air), they create a high-energy gamma-ray by the "bremsstrahlung" process. 3) when the gamma-ray passes near *another* nucleus, it converts into an electron-positron pair.  3) the electric field that accelerated the electron in the first place now sweeps the electron of the new pair in one direction and the positron in the other direction.    So the "reversing the polarity" business just means this:  if the electric field points upwards, then positrons get ejected from the atmosphere into space, while if the electric field points downward, it's the electrons that get ejected into space and the positrons get buried and annihilated in the atmosphere.  Now it happens that for most thunderstorms, the electric field at high altitudes points downwards, so it was surprising to see the opposite field in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As for the basic physics , I think we actually understand it .
It 's in some ways more pedestrian than pulling pairs directly out of the vacuum ( that would require a much higher electric field , I think ) .
It goes like this : 1 ) electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field .
2 ) when the electrons pass near a nucleus ( of an atom in air ) , they create a high-energy gamma-ray by the " bremsstrahlung " process .
3 ) when the gamma-ray passes near * another * nucleus , it converts into an electron-positron pair .
3 ) the electric field that accelerated the electron in the first place now sweeps the electron of the new pair in one direction and the positron in the other direction .
So the " reversing the polarity " business just means this : if the electric field points upwards , then positrons get ejected from the atmosphere into space , while if the electric field points downward , it 's the electrons that get ejected into space and the positrons get buried and annihilated in the atmosphere .
Now it happens that for most thunderstorms , the electric field at high altitudes points downwards , so it was surprising to see the opposite field in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for the basic physics, I think we actually understand it.
It's in some ways more pedestrian than pulling pairs directly out of the vacuum (that would require a much higher electric field, I think).
It goes like this:  1) electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field.
2) when the electrons pass near a nucleus (of an atom in air), they create a high-energy gamma-ray by the "bremsstrahlung" process.
3) when the gamma-ray passes near *another* nucleus, it converts into an electron-positron pair.
3) the electric field that accelerated the electron in the first place now sweeps the electron of the new pair in one direction and the positron in the other direction.
So the "reversing the polarity" business just means this:  if the electric field points upwards, then positrons get ejected from the atmosphere into space, while if the electric field points downward, it's the electrons that get ejected into space and the positrons get buried and annihilated in the atmosphere.
Now it happens that for most thunderstorms, the electric field at high altitudes points downwards, so it was surprising to see the opposite field in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30019654</id>
	<title>Re:Electron-Proton Collisions?</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1257622740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess the real particle physicists do go out drinking on Saturday nights...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the real particle physicists do go out drinking on Saturday nights.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the real particle physicists do go out drinking on Saturday nights...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016530</id>
	<title>Re:Not that surprising</title>
	<author>Walzmyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257586020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So all those SciFi (SyFy?) stories about reaching new worlds through thunderstorms were actually on to something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So all those SciFi ( SyFy ?
) stories about reaching new worlds through thunderstorms were actually on to something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So all those SciFi (SyFy?
) stories about reaching new worlds through thunderstorms were actually on to something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014174</id>
	<title>Re:reversal schmersal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257607800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, you better post all that fact and expert information as AC! This is Slashdot, we'll not have any of that shit in here.. If we ever catch you in person, you'll be so deep in karma-pithole that no positive comments will ever escape again.</p><p>Let it be the last time,<br>Slashmob</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , you better post all that fact and expert information as AC !
This is Slashdot , we 'll not have any of that shit in here.. If we ever catch you in person , you 'll be so deep in karma-pithole that no positive comments will ever escape again.Let it be the last time,Slashmob</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, you better post all that fact and expert information as AC!
This is Slashdot, we'll not have any of that shit in here.. If we ever catch you in person, you'll be so deep in karma-pithole that no positive comments will ever escape again.Let it be the last time,Slashmob</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016610</id>
	<title>Re:reversal schmersal</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1257586860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last I checked, the Schwinger Effect involved several bisexuals and copious amounts of KY...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , the Schwinger Effect involved several bisexuals and copious amounts of KY.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, the Schwinger Effect involved several bisexuals and copious amounts of KY...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30037952</id>
	<title>Re:Reversing the polarity of the electron discharg</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1257760200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's good to know that we'll reach the technology to escape tractor beams before going for the warp drive : )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's good to know that we 'll reach the technology to escape tractor beams before going for the warp drive : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's good to know that we'll reach the technology to escape tractor beams before going for the warp drive : )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013966</id>
	<title>Crossover</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1257604560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now the monster of frankenstein (powered by lightning) was in fact the first asimovian positronic robot (ok, the alpha one, without any law). With that much discussion about who could be the author to write Asimov's stories, maybe the original Mary Shelley could be the one worthy for that task.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the monster of frankenstein ( powered by lightning ) was in fact the first asimovian positronic robot ( ok , the alpha one , without any law ) .
With that much discussion about who could be the author to write Asimov 's stories , maybe the original Mary Shelley could be the one worthy for that task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the monster of frankenstein (powered by lightning) was in fact the first asimovian positronic robot (ok, the alpha one, without any law).
With that much discussion about who could be the author to write Asimov's stories, maybe the original Mary Shelley could be the one worthy for that task.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013942</id>
	<title>just wondering...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257604320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>does this mean the LHC is obsolete?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does this mean the LHC is obsolete ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does this mean the LHC is obsolete?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016796</id>
	<title>Re:The forums are full of scientists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257588660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Articles posted to Slashdot usually dramatize their importance to create interest. If even a minority of stories posted were as important as the summary or the linked story indicated, you'd be battling terminators with zero energy blasters from your cold fusion powered flying car by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Articles posted to Slashdot usually dramatize their importance to create interest .
If even a minority of stories posted were as important as the summary or the linked story indicated , you 'd be battling terminators with zero energy blasters from your cold fusion powered flying car by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Articles posted to Slashdot usually dramatize their importance to create interest.
If even a minority of stories posted were as important as the summary or the linked story indicated, you'd be battling terminators with zero energy blasters from your cold fusion powered flying car by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015622</id>
	<title>Re:positrons vs electrons</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257621780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A positron "decays" by mutual annihilation with an electron.  This results is the emission of two 511KeV photons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A positron " decays " by mutual annihilation with an electron .
This results is the emission of two 511KeV photons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A positron "decays" by mutual annihilation with an electron.
This results is the emission of two 511KeV photons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014554</id>
	<title>Re:what exactly did they detect?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1257613320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fusion releases the binding energy of the fused nucleus.  It's like what happens in a chemical reaction except the mediating force is the (residual) strong force instead of the electromagnetic force, so you tend to get more energy.  That amount of energy is still very small compared to the total energy represented by the mass of the reactants.  It's not really matter to energy power generation because the mass that gets converted to energy is not really "matter" but rather potential energy.  You're talking about a process where you actually take some matter and convert it entirely into energy.</p><p>Take a simple fusion reaction, 2H + 2H -&gt; 3He + n.</p><p>Look at the mass balance of that equation:<br>delta mass = 2*(mass of 2H) - (mass of 3He + mass of n)<br>= 2*(2.0141 u) - (3.0160 u + 1.0087 u)<br>= 0.0035 u.</p><p>In contrast, if you found some kind of total conversion method you could convert the entire mass of the reactants into energy.  That is, instead of 0.0035 u converted into energy you'd have 4.0282 u -- the total conversion reaction yields more than a thousand times the energy of the fusion reaction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fusion releases the binding energy of the fused nucleus .
It 's like what happens in a chemical reaction except the mediating force is the ( residual ) strong force instead of the electromagnetic force , so you tend to get more energy .
That amount of energy is still very small compared to the total energy represented by the mass of the reactants .
It 's not really matter to energy power generation because the mass that gets converted to energy is not really " matter " but rather potential energy .
You 're talking about a process where you actually take some matter and convert it entirely into energy.Take a simple fusion reaction , 2H + 2H - &gt; 3He + n.Look at the mass balance of that equation : delta mass = 2 * ( mass of 2H ) - ( mass of 3He + mass of n ) = 2 * ( 2.0141 u ) - ( 3.0160 u + 1.0087 u ) = 0.0035 u.In contrast , if you found some kind of total conversion method you could convert the entire mass of the reactants into energy .
That is , instead of 0.0035 u converted into energy you 'd have 4.0282 u -- the total conversion reaction yields more than a thousand times the energy of the fusion reaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fusion releases the binding energy of the fused nucleus.
It's like what happens in a chemical reaction except the mediating force is the (residual) strong force instead of the electromagnetic force, so you tend to get more energy.
That amount of energy is still very small compared to the total energy represented by the mass of the reactants.
It's not really matter to energy power generation because the mass that gets converted to energy is not really "matter" but rather potential energy.
You're talking about a process where you actually take some matter and convert it entirely into energy.Take a simple fusion reaction, 2H + 2H -&gt; 3He + n.Look at the mass balance of that equation:delta mass = 2*(mass of 2H) - (mass of 3He + mass of n)= 2*(2.0141 u) - (3.0160 u + 1.0087 u)= 0.0035 u.In contrast, if you found some kind of total conversion method you could convert the entire mass of the reactants into energy.
That is, instead of 0.0035 u converted into energy you'd have 4.0282 u -- the total conversion reaction yields more than a thousand times the energy of the fusion reaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014658</id>
	<title>positrons vs electrons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257614520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And they can tell this is the decay of a positron and not an electron by what means?  Shouldn't they have the same energy wavelength?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And they can tell this is the decay of a positron and not an electron by what means ?
Should n't they have the same energy wavelength ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they can tell this is the decay of a positron and not an electron by what means?
Shouldn't they have the same energy wavelength?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014196</id>
	<title>Electron-Proton Collisions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257608100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the radiation you observe when a positron is annihilated different from what you would see if, say, an electron collided with a proton?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the radiation you observe when a positron is annihilated different from what you would see if , say , an electron collided with a proton ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the radiation you observe when a positron is annihilated different from what you would see if, say, an electron collided with a proton?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30019044</id>
	<title>Re:reversal schmersal</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257612960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pfff... I thought Americans like German hard sounding words.</p><p>Either you have never player Wolfenstein, or that was way over your head. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pfff... I thought Americans like German hard sounding words.Either you have never player Wolfenstein , or that was way over your head .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pfff... I thought Americans like German hard sounding words.Either you have never player Wolfenstein, or that was way over your head.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30018104</id>
	<title>Re:reversal schmersal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257601380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yea , I used to think that when I was younger, now after many years of vodka I found that relativity still hold true, at least for drunkards the sortest way from A to B is the curve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yea , I used to think that when I was younger , now after many years of vodka I found that relativity still hold true , at least for drunkards the sortest way from A to B is the curve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea , I used to think that when I was younger, now after many years of vodka I found that relativity still hold true, at least for drunkards the sortest way from A to B is the curve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013974</id>
	<title>The 1st starship captains</title>
	<author>rahmant</author>
	<datestamp>1257604740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dr. Emmet Brown + Marty Mcfly?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dr. Emmet Brown + Marty Mcfly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dr. Emmet Brown + Marty Mcfly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014332</id>
	<title>Re:reversal schmersal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257610320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>reversal <strong>sch</strong>mersal</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>the <strong>Schwinger</strong> Effect</p></div><p>Aaahh... a bit of German makes every scientific topic cool.<br>We only lack a "f&#228;rbotten&#228;rr Krruppstahl Gammastrrahl&#228;nn-Krriegsmaschinenapparraturrr" in there somewhere. Jawohl!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Wundabar! Jahaha!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>reversal schmersalthe Schwinger EffectAaahh... a bit of German makes every scientific topic cool.We only lack a " f   rbotten   rr Krruppstahl Gammastrrahl   nn-Krriegsmaschinenapparraturrr " in there somewhere .
Jawohl ! ; ) Wundabar !
Jahaha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reversal schmersalthe Schwinger EffectAaahh... a bit of German makes every scientific topic cool.We only lack a "färbottenärr Krruppstahl Gammastrrahlänn-Krriegsmaschinenapparraturrr" in there somewhere.
Jawohl! ;)Wundabar!
Jahaha!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014092</id>
	<title>Jigawatt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257606360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that surprising, with all those jigawatts of energy in lightning...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that surprising , with all those jigawatts of energy in lightning.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that surprising, with all those jigawatts of energy in lightning...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015836</id>
	<title>The truth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257623100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the truth is that the secret overlords are slowly punching a hole into our universe and they need ACTA enabled as well as gordon browns world tax so they can move in and take over there corporations</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the truth is that the secret overlords are slowly punching a hole into our universe and they need ACTA enabled as well as gordon browns world tax so they can move in and take over there corporations</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the truth is that the secret overlords are slowly punching a hole into our universe and they need ACTA enabled as well as gordon browns world tax so they can move in and take over there corporations</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014726</id>
	<title>The forums are full of scientists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257615240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it so funny that, everytime a piece of news is posted here about someone discovering something fascinating to the scientific community, there's always a group of people that already knew about it/didn't find the discovery so relevant/etc. These people usually write long posts with technical vocabulary unfolding the misteries of the discovery to everyone, which makes me wonder why they are not working in these laboratories already where they could have solved these misteries long ago (or maybe I'm wrong and some of them already are working there).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it so funny that , everytime a piece of news is posted here about someone discovering something fascinating to the scientific community , there 's always a group of people that already knew about it/did n't find the discovery so relevant/etc .
These people usually write long posts with technical vocabulary unfolding the misteries of the discovery to everyone , which makes me wonder why they are not working in these laboratories already where they could have solved these misteries long ago ( or maybe I 'm wrong and some of them already are working there ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it so funny that, everytime a piece of news is posted here about someone discovering something fascinating to the scientific community, there's always a group of people that already knew about it/didn't find the discovery so relevant/etc.
These people usually write long posts with technical vocabulary unfolding the misteries of the discovery to everyone, which makes me wonder why they are not working in these laboratories already where they could have solved these misteries long ago (or maybe I'm wrong and some of them already are working there).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014404</id>
	<title>Re:Electron-Proton Collisions?</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1257611340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>well to start with electrons and protons don't destroy each other.  if they were somehow forced together and you threw in an anti-neutrino maybe you could force the reverse of a neutron decay and make them into a neutron, but first you would need to figure out how to force them all together and how to convince the quarks involved to shuffle identities.<br> <br>so if it's even possible within the laws of physics it's probably at least a thousand years before we can do anything like that, and i don't see any reason to be doing it in the first place since it's pretty easy to find neutrons so why try to make them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>well to start with electrons and protons do n't destroy each other .
if they were somehow forced together and you threw in an anti-neutrino maybe you could force the reverse of a neutron decay and make them into a neutron , but first you would need to figure out how to force them all together and how to convince the quarks involved to shuffle identities .
so if it 's even possible within the laws of physics it 's probably at least a thousand years before we can do anything like that , and i do n't see any reason to be doing it in the first place since it 's pretty easy to find neutrons so why try to make them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well to start with electrons and protons don't destroy each other.
if they were somehow forced together and you threw in an anti-neutrino maybe you could force the reverse of a neutron decay and make them into a neutron, but first you would need to figure out how to force them all together and how to convince the quarks involved to shuffle identities.
so if it's even possible within the laws of physics it's probably at least a thousand years before we can do anything like that, and i don't see any reason to be doing it in the first place since it's pretty easy to find neutrons so why try to make them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016712</id>
	<title>Re:Reversing the polarity of the electron discharg</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1257587940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a small roll of Sellotape can generate X-rays in a vacuum chambers, we just need a larger or stickier roll to generate these gamma-rays and anti-matter. Alternatively, get someone to pull the tape extra fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a small roll of Sellotape can generate X-rays in a vacuum chambers , we just need a larger or stickier roll to generate these gamma-rays and anti-matter .
Alternatively , get someone to pull the tape extra fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a small roll of Sellotape can generate X-rays in a vacuum chambers, we just need a larger or stickier roll to generate these gamma-rays and anti-matter.
Alternatively, get someone to pull the tape extra fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014462</id>
	<title>Really surprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257612240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let us see.. the electric field that gives rise to lightning discharges measures, what, 100 MV? In that field electrons and singly charged ions could, in principal,  be accelerated to energies up to 100 MeV. The rest mass of an electron is 0.51 MeV, the rest mass of an electron-positron pair thus is 1.02 MeV. No, most electrons and ions would not attain these energy levels due to collisions etc. but some might get up to the required level to generate e-p pairs. The p will annihilate some e and, voila, you have your 1.02 MeV gamma photons.</p><p>See a lightning strike as in particle accelerator with an in-situ target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let us see.. the electric field that gives rise to lightning discharges measures , what , 100 MV ?
In that field electrons and singly charged ions could , in principal , be accelerated to energies up to 100 MeV .
The rest mass of an electron is 0.51 MeV , the rest mass of an electron-positron pair thus is 1.02 MeV .
No , most electrons and ions would not attain these energy levels due to collisions etc .
but some might get up to the required level to generate e-p pairs .
The p will annihilate some e and , voila , you have your 1.02 MeV gamma photons.See a lightning strike as in particle accelerator with an in-situ target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let us see.. the electric field that gives rise to lightning discharges measures, what, 100 MV?
In that field electrons and singly charged ions could, in principal,  be accelerated to energies up to 100 MeV.
The rest mass of an electron is 0.51 MeV, the rest mass of an electron-positron pair thus is 1.02 MeV.
No, most electrons and ions would not attain these energy levels due to collisions etc.
but some might get up to the required level to generate e-p pairs.
The p will annihilate some e and, voila, you have your 1.02 MeV gamma photons.See a lightning strike as in particle accelerator with an in-situ target.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30018654</id>
	<title>[Comic Book Guy-mode]</title>
	<author>siglercm</author>
	<datestamp>1257607740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lamest... summary... Ever! [/Comic Book Guy-mode]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lamest... summary... Ever !
[ /Comic Book Guy-mode ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lamest... summary... Ever!
[/Comic Book Guy-mode]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014656</id>
	<title>Is it just me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257614520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or is anyone else having a hard time differentiating between real science and star trek jokes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or is anyone else having a hard time differentiating between real science and star trek jokes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or is anyone else having a hard time differentiating between real science and star trek jokes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015124</id>
	<title>this explains</title>
	<author>brre</author>
	<datestamp>1257618480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why you need lightning to give life to inanimate flesh and time travel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>why you need lightning to give life to inanimate flesh and time travel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why you need lightning to give life to inanimate flesh and time travel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013948</id>
	<title>it's called total protonic reversal</title>
	<author>OMGZombies</author>
	<datestamp>1257604380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the lightning streams got crossed...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the lightning streams got crossed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the lightning streams got crossed...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30037952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30019272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30019602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30025096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30019044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30018104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30020704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30018814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30017310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30028120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30020134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30017684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30020282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_047249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30019654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015632
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30018814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30037952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30019272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30019602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30025096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30017684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30020134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30020282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30020704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30019654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30019044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30018104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30016366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30015492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30017310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30014484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30028120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_047249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_047249.30013970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
