<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_24_052252</id>
	<title>Next-Gen Glitter-Sized Photovoltaic Cells Unveiled</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1261659420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MikeChino writes <i>"Sandia National Laboratories recently announced a new breed of <a href="http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/12/23/amazing-glitter-sized-photovoltaic-cells-look-like-golden-snowflakes/">glitter-sized solar cells</a> made from crystalline silicon that use 100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafers. Perfect for soaking up the sun&rsquo;s rays on unusual shapes and surfaces, the tiny solar cells are expected to be less expensive, more efficient, and have promising new applications in textiles, clothing, and building facade installations."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MikeChino writes " Sandia National Laboratories recently announced a new breed of glitter-sized solar cells made from crystalline silicon that use 100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafers .
Perfect for soaking up the sun    s rays on unusual shapes and surfaces , the tiny solar cells are expected to be less expensive , more efficient , and have promising new applications in textiles , clothing , and building facade installations .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MikeChino writes "Sandia National Laboratories recently announced a new breed of glitter-sized solar cells made from crystalline silicon that use 100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafers.
Perfect for soaking up the sun’s rays on unusual shapes and surfaces, the tiny solar cells are expected to be less expensive, more efficient, and have promising new applications in textiles, clothing, and building facade installations.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543622</id>
	<title>Too much silicon use?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261668120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is a 6 inch square wafer around<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.2 millimeters thick per cell too much material usage from the most abundant element on the earths crust?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is a 6 inch square wafer around .2 millimeters thick per cell too much material usage from the most abundant element on the earths crust ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is a 6 inch square wafer around .2 millimeters thick per cell too much material usage from the most abundant element on the earths crust?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543322</id>
	<title>Efficiency of current cells less than 1\%????</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1261664580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? 100 times more efficient? How does that work when current cells are more than 1\% efficient to begin with. You can't pull out energy that isn't there? What am I missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
100 times more efficient ?
How does that work when current cells are more than 1 \ % efficient to begin with .
You ca n't pull out energy that is n't there ?
What am I missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
100 times more efficient?
How does that work when current cells are more than 1\% efficient to begin with.
You can't pull out energy that isn't there?
What am I missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544292</id>
	<title>Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard</title>
	<author>KraftDinner</author>
	<datestamp>1261673040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Peter Griffin: A palette? Am-am I readin' this right? Y-You need a palette of chocolate-covered pretzels? Wh-wh-where the hell am i supposed to - a-an-an-and wh-what is this, a drum of grape jam? Is that - wh-what is that - is that like a drum like, they ship oil in? Is that - a-a-an-and wh-wh-wha - look at this one: A desk of Cheez-its. A desk - wh-where are you gettin' these units of measurements from?
Jack&#233;e Harry: Mary.
Peter Griffin: [laughs] That is still funny. Okay you stay right here, big funny gal, i'll be right back with...
[reads from the clipboard]
Peter Griffin: a hammock of cake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peter Griffin : A palette ?
Am-am I readin ' this right ?
Y-You need a palette of chocolate-covered pretzels ?
Wh-wh-where the hell am i supposed to - a-an-an-and wh-what is this , a drum of grape jam ?
Is that - wh-what is that - is that like a drum like , they ship oil in ?
Is that - a-a-an-and wh-wh-wha - look at this one : A desk of Cheez-its .
A desk - wh-where are you gettin ' these units of measurements from ?
Jack   e Harry : Mary .
Peter Griffin : [ laughs ] That is still funny .
Okay you stay right here , big funny gal , i 'll be right back with.. . [ reads from the clipboard ] Peter Griffin : a hammock of cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peter Griffin: A palette?
Am-am I readin' this right?
Y-You need a palette of chocolate-covered pretzels?
Wh-wh-where the hell am i supposed to - a-an-an-and wh-what is this, a drum of grape jam?
Is that - wh-what is that - is that like a drum like, they ship oil in?
Is that - a-a-an-and wh-wh-wha - look at this one: A desk of Cheez-its.
A desk - wh-where are you gettin' these units of measurements from?
Jackée Harry: Mary.
Peter Griffin: [laughs] That is still funny.
Okay you stay right here, big funny gal, i'll be right back with...
[reads from the clipboard]
Peter Griffin: a hammock of cake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30546588</id>
	<title>Investment in house...</title>
	<author>ELCouz</author>
	<datestamp>1261645680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Suddenly everyone who has invested in solar energy panel (now old tech) for their homes feels they got ripped off...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suddenly everyone who has invested in solar energy panel ( now old tech ) for their homes feels they got ripped off.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suddenly everyone who has invested in solar energy panel (now old tech) for their homes feels they got ripped off...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545582</id>
	<title>Re:cheap highpower photocells, the ultimate vaporw</title>
	<author>savuporo</author>
	<datestamp>1261681200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not quite. Google on "first solar, grid parity". Also, news.google.com : nanosolar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite .
Google on " first solar , grid parity " .
Also , news.google.com : nanosolar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite.
Google on "first solar, grid parity".
Also, news.google.com : nanosolar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544842</id>
	<title>100x more efficient than 20\%. How is that possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261676400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2000\% Efficiency.</p><p>These guys should get the Nobel in Physics and the Fields Medal in Maths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2000 \ % Efficiency.These guys should get the Nobel in Physics and the Fields Medal in Maths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2000\% Efficiency.These guys should get the Nobel in Physics and the Fields Medal in Maths.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543256</id>
	<title>Does this tip the balance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261663500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Up until now we have all known that trench-coat ninjas &gt; glitter vampires &gt; eye-liner pirates.<br> <br>Does this invention change this?  Will glitter vampires now be able to overpower both eye-liner pirates and trench-coat ninjas?<br> <br>Or does the "solar" aspect of these tiny solar cells make them useless, even deadly, to glitter vampires?<br> <br>Also, can someone please explain where heroin-chic werewolves fit into the hierarchy?  I'm having trouble placing them.<br> <br>These are the questions that wake me in the middle of the night, sweating and with racing heart.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Up until now we have all known that trench-coat ninjas &gt; glitter vampires &gt; eye-liner pirates .
Does this invention change this ?
Will glitter vampires now be able to overpower both eye-liner pirates and trench-coat ninjas ?
Or does the " solar " aspect of these tiny solar cells make them useless , even deadly , to glitter vampires ?
Also , can someone please explain where heroin-chic werewolves fit into the hierarchy ?
I 'm having trouble placing them .
These are the questions that wake me in the middle of the night , sweating and with racing heart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up until now we have all known that trench-coat ninjas &gt; glitter vampires &gt; eye-liner pirates.
Does this invention change this?
Will glitter vampires now be able to overpower both eye-liner pirates and trench-coat ninjas?
Or does the "solar" aspect of these tiny solar cells make them useless, even deadly, to glitter vampires?
Also, can someone please explain where heroin-chic werewolves fit into the hierarchy?
I'm having trouble placing them.
These are the questions that wake me in the middle of the night, sweating and with racing heart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543680</id>
	<title>How to use the electricity?</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1261668600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be interesting if these "glitter cells" could be suspended in some kind of "paint" or perhaps embedded in a capacitative tile. The paint especially would have a lot of interesting uses -- cover your car, for example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be interesting if these " glitter cells " could be suspended in some kind of " paint " or perhaps embedded in a capacitative tile .
The paint especially would have a lot of interesting uses -- cover your car , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be interesting if these "glitter cells" could be suspended in some kind of "paint" or perhaps embedded in a capacitative tile.
The paint especially would have a lot of interesting uses -- cover your car, for example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543658</id>
	<title>Re:and I bet</title>
	<author>Bai jie</author>
	<datestamp>1261668480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>obligatory<p>

<a href="http://xkcd.com/678/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/678/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>obligatory http : //xkcd.com/678/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obligatory

http://xkcd.com/678/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543568</id>
	<title>Re:When can I buy it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261667640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're not interested in science en technology news then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is not the site for you.<br>There are plenty other sites that do only product reviews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're not interested in science en technology news then / .
is not the site for you.There are plenty other sites that do only product reviews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're not interested in science en technology news then /.
is not the site for you.There are plenty other sites that do only product reviews.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544224</id>
	<title>For the love of whomever...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261672560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we PLEASE stop saying "100 times less"?  If I have 10 grams of something, 100 times less is 1000 grams less -- I now have -990 grams!!</p><p>The correct phrase is "1\%" or "1/100th".  Or, conversely: "The current usage is 100 times greater than the new usage".</p><p>Flame me if you wish, but why would a scientifically-oriented blog cater to idiot-speak?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we PLEASE stop saying " 100 times less " ?
If I have 10 grams of something , 100 times less is 1000 grams less -- I now have -990 grams !
! The correct phrase is " 1 \ % " or " 1/100th " .
Or , conversely : " The current usage is 100 times greater than the new usage " .Flame me if you wish , but why would a scientifically-oriented blog cater to idiot-speak ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we PLEASE stop saying "100 times less"?
If I have 10 grams of something, 100 times less is 1000 grams less -- I now have -990 grams!
!The correct phrase is "1\%" or "1/100th".
Or, conversely: "The current usage is 100 times greater than the new usage".Flame me if you wish, but why would a scientifically-oriented blog cater to idiot-speak?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543344</id>
	<title>Re:cheap highpower photocells, the ultimate vaporw</title>
	<author>Hitto</author>
	<datestamp>1261664820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>plus fucking one. THIS revolution is going to be televised and there's nothing we can do about it.</p><p>Only a big company would bother to start mass-buying and installing these, and be able to feed its employees.</p><p>And what about the end-of-the-food-chain-customers? In my case (france), you also have to convice the other landowners/condo owners that it "will not make their roof ugly". It's a seven-story building... -\_-;</p><p>That's in France, by the way. Last time I went to germany, most individual houses had solar roofs. I found them beautiful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>plus fucking one .
THIS revolution is going to be televised and there 's nothing we can do about it.Only a big company would bother to start mass-buying and installing these , and be able to feed its employees.And what about the end-of-the-food-chain-customers ?
In my case ( france ) , you also have to convice the other landowners/condo owners that it " will not make their roof ugly " .
It 's a seven-story building... - \ _- ; That 's in France , by the way .
Last time I went to germany , most individual houses had solar roofs .
I found them beautiful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>plus fucking one.
THIS revolution is going to be televised and there's nothing we can do about it.Only a big company would bother to start mass-buying and installing these, and be able to feed its employees.And what about the end-of-the-food-chain-customers?
In my case (france), you also have to convice the other landowners/condo owners that it "will not make their roof ugly".
It's a seven-story building... -\_-;That's in France, by the way.
Last time I went to germany, most individual houses had solar roofs.
I found them beautiful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545238</id>
	<title>Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261678920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I still want to know how you use 100 times less material. So you have x amount of material, you use 100 times less than that:</p><p>x - 100x = -99x</p><p>It gives back 99 times the original amount? Hmmmm...</p><p>Maybe they meant to say that it uses one hundredth the amount of material? Nah, if they meant that they'd have said it correctly, right?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you ! I still want to know how you use 100 times less material .
So you have x amount of material , you use 100 times less than that : x - 100x = -99xIt gives back 99 times the original amount ?
Hmmmm...Maybe they meant to say that it uses one hundredth the amount of material ?
Nah , if they meant that they 'd have said it correctly , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you!I still want to know how you use 100 times less material.
So you have x amount of material, you use 100 times less than that:x - 100x = -99xIt gives back 99 times the original amount?
Hmmmm...Maybe they meant to say that it uses one hundredth the amount of material?
Nah, if they meant that they'd have said it correctly, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543484</id>
	<title>Sometimes, the simplest solution is also the best</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261666560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple of mirrors, a tube with water or oil, some turbines and some HVDC lines. Very simple, cheap, easy to fix, known technology. Every African desert country can build them and have more energy than they can use.</p><p>Sure, photovoltaic cells are useful and cool to have. But my bets and my money are on this.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Anyway, all we need now, is a energy storage system that is just as nice and simple.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of mirrors , a tube with water or oil , some turbines and some HVDC lines .
Very simple , cheap , easy to fix , known technology .
Every African desert country can build them and have more energy than they can use.Sure , photovoltaic cells are useful and cool to have .
But my bets and my money are on this .
: ) Anyway , all we need now , is a energy storage system that is just as nice and simple .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of mirrors, a tube with water or oil, some turbines and some HVDC lines.
Very simple, cheap, easy to fix, known technology.
Every African desert country can build them and have more energy than they can use.Sure, photovoltaic cells are useful and cool to have.
But my bets and my money are on this.
:)Anyway, all we need now, is a energy storage system that is just as nice and simple.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543638</id>
	<title>Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1261668300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>My favorite measure is still the "buttload" as in, "We have a buttload of these old 1.6 gig Celeron machines, should we make a beowulf cluster?" There are instances of confusion when working between Asia or Europe and America, as the American (or imperial) buttload is larger that the metric buttload, however a buttload does imply plenty so things tend to workout in the end...<br> <br>I'm sorry, I'll get a cup of coffee and take my meds now....</htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite measure is still the " buttload " as in , " We have a buttload of these old 1.6 gig Celeron machines , should we make a beowulf cluster ?
" There are instances of confusion when working between Asia or Europe and America , as the American ( or imperial ) buttload is larger that the metric buttload , however a buttload does imply plenty so things tend to workout in the end... I 'm sorry , I 'll get a cup of coffee and take my meds now... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite measure is still the "buttload" as in, "We have a buttload of these old 1.6 gig Celeron machines, should we make a beowulf cluster?
" There are instances of confusion when working between Asia or Europe and America, as the American (or imperial) buttload is larger that the metric buttload, however a buttload does imply plenty so things tend to workout in the end... I'm sorry, I'll get a cup of coffee and take my meds now....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30552046</id>
	<title>Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261771620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; My favorite measure is still the "buttload"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Perfect. 1 gLitter = 1 giga Litter, which just about sounds the same amount as would emanate from a "buttload"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; My favorite measure is still the " buttload " ...Perfect .
1 gLitter = 1 giga Litter , which just about sounds the same amount as would emanate from a " buttload "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; My favorite measure is still the "buttload" ...Perfect.
1 gLitter = 1 giga Litter, which just about sounds the same amount as would emanate from a "buttload"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544566</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1261674900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, sell the rights to an American company and require that the work be done in America. It is frustrating that America does all this RD, and then sends it to places that will not even respect the patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , sell the rights to an American company and require that the work be done in America .
It is frustrating that America does all this RD , and then sends it to places that will not even respect the patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, sell the rights to an American company and require that the work be done in America.
It is frustrating that America does all this RD, and then sends it to places that will not even respect the patents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543286</id>
	<title>When can I buy it</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1261664040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like most sensational announcements of breakthroughs in engineering on Slashdot; If I can't buy products that use it at my local hardware store or via Amazon for my iphone/laptop/electronic device, it might as well not exist.</p><p>So what that it was invented. The REAL story would be an announcement of a product that will be SOLD. This story is just a teaser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like most sensational announcements of breakthroughs in engineering on Slashdot ; If I ca n't buy products that use it at my local hardware store or via Amazon for my iphone/laptop/electronic device , it might as well not exist.So what that it was invented .
The REAL story would be an announcement of a product that will be SOLD .
This story is just a teaser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like most sensational announcements of breakthroughs in engineering on Slashdot; If I can't buy products that use it at my local hardware store or via Amazon for my iphone/laptop/electronic device, it might as well not exist.So what that it was invented.
The REAL story would be an announcement of a product that will be SOLD.
This story is just a teaser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543820</id>
	<title>Re:14.9 really any good ?</title>
	<author>maroberts</author>
	<datestamp>1261669800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article, Johnsons 60\% involves some high temperature components, and probably is not suitable for miniaturisation. The conditions under which you can use your cells matters as much as the efficiency</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article , Johnsons 60 \ % involves some high temperature components , and probably is not suitable for miniaturisation .
The conditions under which you can use your cells matters as much as the efficiency</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article, Johnsons 60\% involves some high temperature components, and probably is not suitable for miniaturisation.
The conditions under which you can use your cells matters as much as the efficiency</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543418</id>
	<title>Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261665840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with using "glitter" as a new standard non-standard measurement is that there is probably already a NSSU for particles of that size.  Duplicate functionality.  This is in addition to the fact that glitter is of an uncertan size -- I've seen glitter particles nearly a cm square, and I've seen glitter particles in the sub-mm range.<br> <br>If we are measuring in only one plane (since solar cells are pretty much flat), then the correct unit would be a nanoacre (about 2 mm square).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with using " glitter " as a new standard non-standard measurement is that there is probably already a NSSU for particles of that size .
Duplicate functionality .
This is in addition to the fact that glitter is of an uncertan size -- I 've seen glitter particles nearly a cm square , and I 've seen glitter particles in the sub-mm range .
If we are measuring in only one plane ( since solar cells are pretty much flat ) , then the correct unit would be a nanoacre ( about 2 mm square ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with using "glitter" as a new standard non-standard measurement is that there is probably already a NSSU for particles of that size.
Duplicate functionality.
This is in addition to the fact that glitter is of an uncertan size -- I've seen glitter particles nearly a cm square, and I've seen glitter particles in the sub-mm range.
If we are measuring in only one plane (since solar cells are pretty much flat), then the correct unit would be a nanoacre (about 2 mm square).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543254</id>
	<title>Everything old is new again?</title>
	<author>crrkrieger</author>
	<datestamp>1261663500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I thought glitter went out most of a decade ago.  Time to dig into the closent!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I thought glitter went out most of a decade ago .
Time to dig into the closent !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I thought glitter went out most of a decade ago.
Time to dig into the closent!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545106</id>
	<title>Sorry, that has been out of date for 140 years</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1261678140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't forget the two standards of measurement from the world of geography: Texas and Rhode Island.</p></div><p>Not so fast, cowboy.  Alaska has been a bigger US possession since the 1860s.  I am sure Texans would love to sell it back to Russia.  Not only would they regain status as the biggest US state or territory, Sarah Palin might be available as governor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the two standards of measurement from the world of geography : Texas and Rhode Island.Not so fast , cowboy .
Alaska has been a bigger US possession since the 1860s .
I am sure Texans would love to sell it back to Russia .
Not only would they regain status as the biggest US state or territory , Sarah Palin might be available as governor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the two standards of measurement from the world of geography: Texas and Rhode Island.Not so fast, cowboy.
Alaska has been a bigger US possession since the 1860s.
I am sure Texans would love to sell it back to Russia.
Not only would they regain status as the biggest US state or territory, Sarah Palin might be available as governor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543316</id>
	<title>Wiring them up</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1261664520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, I guess it is good news for China, since hundreds of millions of girls will need to be employed to wire these things up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , I guess it is good news for China , since hundreds of millions of girls will need to be employed to wire these things up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, I guess it is good news for China, since hundreds of millions of girls will need to be employed to wire these things up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543408</id>
	<title>Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261665720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*must fight urge to put a joke about Garry Glitter in this comment*</p><p>*must fight...*</p><p>GAAAAHHH *head explodes into a cloud of glitter*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* must fight urge to put a joke about Garry Glitter in this comment * * must fight... * GAAAAHHH * head explodes into a cloud of glitter *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*must fight urge to put a joke about Garry Glitter in this comment**must fight...*GAAAAHHH *head explodes into a cloud of glitter*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543276</id>
	<title>and I bet</title>
	<author>Pikoro</author>
	<datestamp>1261663980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This technology will be mass produced in only 20 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This technology will be mass produced in only 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This technology will be mass produced in only 20 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543610</id>
	<title>Re:When can I buy it</title>
	<author>WillDraven</author>
	<datestamp>1261668060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot: Product Reviews For Nerds, Stuff That You Can Buy?</p><p>Something tells me we wouldn't spend nearly as much time here if thats all Slashdot posted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot : Product Reviews For Nerds , Stuff That You Can Buy ? Something tells me we would n't spend nearly as much time here if thats all Slashdot posted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot: Product Reviews For Nerds, Stuff That You Can Buy?Something tells me we wouldn't spend nearly as much time here if thats all Slashdot posted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543430</id>
	<title>How do you wire them up?</title>
	<author>StayFrosty</author>
	<datestamp>1261666020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to know how one would go about wiring these tiny solar cells up.  It probably wouldn't be too bad on a flat surface but It doesn't seem like it would be very easy on flexible surfaces like textiles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to know how one would go about wiring these tiny solar cells up .
It probably would n't be too bad on a flat surface but It does n't seem like it would be very easy on flexible surfaces like textiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to know how one would go about wiring these tiny solar cells up.
It probably wouldn't be too bad on a flat surface but It doesn't seem like it would be very easy on flexible surfaces like textiles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30546436</id>
	<title>Re:PR BS</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1261687560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main material used for solar cells is sand (silicon), so the rarity of that commodity should indicate the cost.  When was the last time you saw sand just lying around?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main material used for solar cells is sand ( silicon ) , so the rarity of that commodity should indicate the cost .
When was the last time you saw sand just lying around ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main material used for solar cells is sand (silicon), so the rarity of that commodity should indicate the cost.
When was the last time you saw sand just lying around?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544956</id>
	<title>Re:cheap highpower photocells, the ultimate vaporw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261677180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone notice how the trolls will not give up there meme that solar isn't getting cheaper? Because these f*cking idiots do have the skills necessary to demonstrate their own ignorance. I just don't get it. Pure Laziness I guess. Utterly blind to the SOLAR REVOLUTION of 2007 - 2009. where 1) chine sealed the deal on becoming the greatest solar super power for all time 2) reduced manufacturing costs below that of coal power plants. 3) neglect the fact I run a lucrative business on 7 yr payback for solar in MN and as of 2008 i'm not longer dependent on subsidies, which ironically kept getting better increasing my profit. 4) prices are absolutely crashing such that parity with existing grid costs may occur in 2010 for just about everywhere in the US except PNW. The cost parity target is 2012 to 2015 and these idiots have the audacity to maintain their complaints. Some people should be shot. I wonder how many customers I lose to misinformed trolls who still use numbers from 1999.... I'll pay back my customers systems at PPP +1. Its in my contract. I have made payments on 17 out of 163 systems, and will probably owe about 6 more payments on those 163 systems to complete payback. 11 were due to broken panel/inverter that they failed to report. new contracts 2006+ don't allow this =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone notice how the trolls will not give up there meme that solar is n't getting cheaper ?
Because these f * cking idiots do have the skills necessary to demonstrate their own ignorance .
I just do n't get it .
Pure Laziness I guess .
Utterly blind to the SOLAR REVOLUTION of 2007 - 2009. where 1 ) chine sealed the deal on becoming the greatest solar super power for all time 2 ) reduced manufacturing costs below that of coal power plants .
3 ) neglect the fact I run a lucrative business on 7 yr payback for solar in MN and as of 2008 i 'm not longer dependent on subsidies , which ironically kept getting better increasing my profit .
4 ) prices are absolutely crashing such that parity with existing grid costs may occur in 2010 for just about everywhere in the US except PNW .
The cost parity target is 2012 to 2015 and these idiots have the audacity to maintain their complaints .
Some people should be shot .
I wonder how many customers I lose to misinformed trolls who still use numbers from 1999.... I 'll pay back my customers systems at PPP + 1 .
Its in my contract .
I have made payments on 17 out of 163 systems , and will probably owe about 6 more payments on those 163 systems to complete payback .
11 were due to broken panel/inverter that they failed to report .
new contracts 2006 + do n't allow this = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone notice how the trolls will not give up there meme that solar isn't getting cheaper?
Because these f*cking idiots do have the skills necessary to demonstrate their own ignorance.
I just don't get it.
Pure Laziness I guess.
Utterly blind to the SOLAR REVOLUTION of 2007 - 2009. where 1) chine sealed the deal on becoming the greatest solar super power for all time 2) reduced manufacturing costs below that of coal power plants.
3) neglect the fact I run a lucrative business on 7 yr payback for solar in MN and as of 2008 i'm not longer dependent on subsidies, which ironically kept getting better increasing my profit.
4) prices are absolutely crashing such that parity with existing grid costs may occur in 2010 for just about everywhere in the US except PNW.
The cost parity target is 2012 to 2015 and these idiots have the audacity to maintain their complaints.
Some people should be shot.
I wonder how many customers I lose to misinformed trolls who still use numbers from 1999.... I'll pay back my customers systems at PPP +1.
Its in my contract.
I have made payments on 17 out of 163 systems, and will probably owe about 6 more payments on those 163 systems to complete payback.
11 were due to broken panel/inverter that they failed to report.
new contracts 2006+ don't allow this =)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543736</id>
	<title>Re:When can I buy it</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1261669080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has been said that in general Americans hate science intensely and distrust scientists but love technology - hence the evolution, vaccination and climate change fiascos going on in the USA when it is accepted elsewhere.<br>Is that the view you have or am I just looking at things far too simplisticly?<br>BTW, the first hybrid car I saw used commercially was in 1987 (passenger vehicle in a mine) - it usually takes a very long time before advances hit the mass market</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been said that in general Americans hate science intensely and distrust scientists but love technology - hence the evolution , vaccination and climate change fiascos going on in the USA when it is accepted elsewhere.Is that the view you have or am I just looking at things far too simplisticly ? BTW , the first hybrid car I saw used commercially was in 1987 ( passenger vehicle in a mine ) - it usually takes a very long time before advances hit the mass market</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been said that in general Americans hate science intensely and distrust scientists but love technology - hence the evolution, vaccination and climate change fiascos going on in the USA when it is accepted elsewhere.Is that the view you have or am I just looking at things far too simplisticly?BTW, the first hybrid car I saw used commercially was in 1987 (passenger vehicle in a mine) - it usually takes a very long time before advances hit the mass market</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30547670</id>
	<title>Re:Let's get the econ right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261655640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I'm awfully tired of these articles predicting something will be better, cheaper to make and therefore much cheaper to buy.</p><p>Cheaper to make means entire new companies can be founded just to make it. This pushes a formerly relatively unique item into becoming a commodity in a competitive market, and the idealized stuff you get from Intro to Economics classes works.</p><p>Now if you have a tightly controlled market - like a monopoly, duopoly, or de facto cartel, with high barriers to entry for newcomers - then you'd have a point. Those kinds of companies don't lower their price, because their price never had anything to do with production costs to begin with.</p><p>But solar? There's a global market for solar, a market that expands greater-than-linearly vs your price cuts. So if you can undercut the current guys, you can eat their customers up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm awfully tired of these articles predicting something will be better , cheaper to make and therefore much cheaper to buy.Cheaper to make means entire new companies can be founded just to make it .
This pushes a formerly relatively unique item into becoming a commodity in a competitive market , and the idealized stuff you get from Intro to Economics classes works.Now if you have a tightly controlled market - like a monopoly , duopoly , or de facto cartel , with high barriers to entry for newcomers - then you 'd have a point .
Those kinds of companies do n't lower their price , because their price never had anything to do with production costs to begin with.But solar ?
There 's a global market for solar , a market that expands greater-than-linearly vs your price cuts .
So if you can undercut the current guys , you can eat their customers up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I'm awfully tired of these articles predicting something will be better, cheaper to make and therefore much cheaper to buy.Cheaper to make means entire new companies can be founded just to make it.
This pushes a formerly relatively unique item into becoming a commodity in a competitive market, and the idealized stuff you get from Intro to Economics classes works.Now if you have a tightly controlled market - like a monopoly, duopoly, or de facto cartel, with high barriers to entry for newcomers - then you'd have a point.
Those kinds of companies don't lower their price, because their price never had anything to do with production costs to begin with.But solar?
There's a global market for solar, a market that expands greater-than-linearly vs your price cuts.
So if you can undercut the current guys, you can eat their customers up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30547138</id>
	<title>Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard</title>
	<author>Donkey\_Hotey</author>
	<datestamp>1261651200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er, you could cut Alaska in half and Texas would be the <i>third</i> largest state...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er , you could cut Alaska in half and Texas would be the third largest state.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er, you could cut Alaska in half and Texas would be the third largest state...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544862</id>
	<title>Re:Great where can I buy this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261676520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best solar panel I can reasonably get my hands on is a a 15\% efficient overpriced 100W monocrystalline panel off ebay for about $300 so it will take about 10 years even in Florida to break even.</p><p>
&nbsp; I would be worried by your statements except for the fact you are incorrect!</p><p>$/Annual kWh is currently maximized by 8-11\% CdTe, but only besting 16-22\% Si by about 20\%. The chinese are making complete panels for $1.09 - 1.34/peak watt. Guess what? Without installation costs that's cheaper than coal! Guess what? doubling the cost for installation &amp; shipping puts it within 10-30\% the cost of coal! LIKE OMG!!! Guess what? installation will trim by 40\% when ridiculous regulations are lifted! Guess what solar is here, now, and it is the future! And the US will buy it from CHINA because we lacked any and all forsight because people listen to crazy neighbors like you! Our energy money will slowly shift from the Sheiks to the communists Ahh how funny.</p><p>You drop in Florida as if it means you have a good solar resource. However Florida is incredibly intermittent, such that, the state has a relatively POOR solar resource on average. In fact, its bested by Minnesota a place where very few panels will produce meaningful electricity past ohh about 2pm today. There are, however, some incredibly good spots for solar resource in Florida, but without listing your location your comment is worthless.</p><p>I'm still skeptical of your 10 yr payback. Maybe if you live in a crappy part of florida with 1) No incentives 2) A hostile utility 3) Increased installation costs due to local regulations 4) Poor solar resource THEN your payback will be 10 yr. However, DIY a few panels and your payback is 7 yrs TOPS. I know this because I'm charging roughly a 40\% overhead and my MN customers for plan, install, commission and systems as recent as 2005 are paying back (14\% Si) My average has gone from about 9yr in 2004 to 7 yr in 2009.</p><p>Your goofball comment about efficiency is ridiculous. The efficiency of no machine throughout the history of man has progressed the way you envision so I don't understand what makes you think PV will. Nor does the efficiency of infinite junction quantum dot Fresnel concentrating cells really matter. The focus on the real commercial PV industry for the last 15 yr has been cost reductions.  The newest tech in the field dates to about 1995... Improvements are to increase yield, reduce cost, and increase economies of scale.</p><p>Good luck down there at sea level!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best solar panel I can reasonably get my hands on is a a 15 \ % efficient overpriced 100W monocrystalline panel off ebay for about $ 300 so it will take about 10 years even in Florida to break even .
  I would be worried by your statements except for the fact you are incorrect ! $ /Annual kWh is currently maximized by 8-11 \ % CdTe , but only besting 16-22 \ % Si by about 20 \ % .
The chinese are making complete panels for $ 1.09 - 1.34/peak watt .
Guess what ?
Without installation costs that 's cheaper than coal !
Guess what ?
doubling the cost for installation &amp; shipping puts it within 10-30 \ % the cost of coal !
LIKE OMG ! ! !
Guess what ?
installation will trim by 40 \ % when ridiculous regulations are lifted !
Guess what solar is here , now , and it is the future !
And the US will buy it from CHINA because we lacked any and all forsight because people listen to crazy neighbors like you !
Our energy money will slowly shift from the Sheiks to the communists Ahh how funny.You drop in Florida as if it means you have a good solar resource .
However Florida is incredibly intermittent , such that , the state has a relatively POOR solar resource on average .
In fact , its bested by Minnesota a place where very few panels will produce meaningful electricity past ohh about 2pm today .
There are , however , some incredibly good spots for solar resource in Florida , but without listing your location your comment is worthless.I 'm still skeptical of your 10 yr payback .
Maybe if you live in a crappy part of florida with 1 ) No incentives 2 ) A hostile utility 3 ) Increased installation costs due to local regulations 4 ) Poor solar resource THEN your payback will be 10 yr. However , DIY a few panels and your payback is 7 yrs TOPS .
I know this because I 'm charging roughly a 40 \ % overhead and my MN customers for plan , install , commission and systems as recent as 2005 are paying back ( 14 \ % Si ) My average has gone from about 9yr in 2004 to 7 yr in 2009.Your goofball comment about efficiency is ridiculous .
The efficiency of no machine throughout the history of man has progressed the way you envision so I do n't understand what makes you think PV will .
Nor does the efficiency of infinite junction quantum dot Fresnel concentrating cells really matter .
The focus on the real commercial PV industry for the last 15 yr has been cost reductions .
The newest tech in the field dates to about 1995... Improvements are to increase yield , reduce cost , and increase economies of scale.Good luck down there at sea level !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best solar panel I can reasonably get my hands on is a a 15\% efficient overpriced 100W monocrystalline panel off ebay for about $300 so it will take about 10 years even in Florida to break even.
  I would be worried by your statements except for the fact you are incorrect!$/Annual kWh is currently maximized by 8-11\% CdTe, but only besting 16-22\% Si by about 20\%.
The chinese are making complete panels for $1.09 - 1.34/peak watt.
Guess what?
Without installation costs that's cheaper than coal!
Guess what?
doubling the cost for installation &amp; shipping puts it within 10-30\% the cost of coal!
LIKE OMG!!!
Guess what?
installation will trim by 40\% when ridiculous regulations are lifted!
Guess what solar is here, now, and it is the future!
And the US will buy it from CHINA because we lacked any and all forsight because people listen to crazy neighbors like you!
Our energy money will slowly shift from the Sheiks to the communists Ahh how funny.You drop in Florida as if it means you have a good solar resource.
However Florida is incredibly intermittent, such that, the state has a relatively POOR solar resource on average.
In fact, its bested by Minnesota a place where very few panels will produce meaningful electricity past ohh about 2pm today.
There are, however, some incredibly good spots for solar resource in Florida, but without listing your location your comment is worthless.I'm still skeptical of your 10 yr payback.
Maybe if you live in a crappy part of florida with 1) No incentives 2) A hostile utility 3) Increased installation costs due to local regulations 4) Poor solar resource THEN your payback will be 10 yr. However, DIY a few panels and your payback is 7 yrs TOPS.
I know this because I'm charging roughly a 40\% overhead and my MN customers for plan, install, commission and systems as recent as 2005 are paying back (14\% Si) My average has gone from about 9yr in 2004 to 7 yr in 2009.Your goofball comment about efficiency is ridiculous.
The efficiency of no machine throughout the history of man has progressed the way you envision so I don't understand what makes you think PV will.
Nor does the efficiency of infinite junction quantum dot Fresnel concentrating cells really matter.
The focus on the real commercial PV industry for the last 15 yr has been cost reductions.
The newest tech in the field dates to about 1995... Improvements are to increase yield, reduce cost, and increase economies of scale.Good luck down there at sea level!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544816</id>
	<title>Re:14.9 really any good ?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1261676280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mirrors are cheap. If your solar panel is 60\% efficient, you can afford the 70\% reflectivity of polished aluminum.  A unit that would power a NE home in the winter would be no larger than a C-band satellite dish.  A NE home with electric resistance heating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mirrors are cheap .
If your solar panel is 60 \ % efficient , you can afford the 70 \ % reflectivity of polished aluminum .
A unit that would power a NE home in the winter would be no larger than a C-band satellite dish .
A NE home with electric resistance heating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mirrors are cheap.
If your solar panel is 60\% efficient, you can afford the 70\% reflectivity of polished aluminum.
A unit that would power a NE home in the winter would be no larger than a C-band satellite dish.
A NE home with electric resistance heating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544100</id>
	<title>Re:Does this tip the balance?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1261671720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Up until now we have all known that trench-coat ninjas &gt; glitter vampires &gt; eye-liner pirates.

Does this invention change this? Will glitter vampires now be able to overpower both eye-liner pirates and trench-coat ninjas?

Or does the "solar" aspect of these tiny solar cells make them useless, even deadly, to glitter vampires?</p></div><p>This doesn't change anything.  Vampires can wear them, but they won't get energy from the sun, only candlelight.  It's just like the speaker-laden trench-coats, or pro-football grade eye-liner.  Ninjas can't sneak while blaring music, and eye-liner's only half-useful when you're wearing an eye-patch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Up until now we have all known that trench-coat ninjas &gt; glitter vampires &gt; eye-liner pirates .
Does this invention change this ?
Will glitter vampires now be able to overpower both eye-liner pirates and trench-coat ninjas ?
Or does the " solar " aspect of these tiny solar cells make them useless , even deadly , to glitter vampires ? This does n't change anything .
Vampires can wear them , but they wo n't get energy from the sun , only candlelight .
It 's just like the speaker-laden trench-coats , or pro-football grade eye-liner .
Ninjas ca n't sneak while blaring music , and eye-liner 's only half-useful when you 're wearing an eye-patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up until now we have all known that trench-coat ninjas &gt; glitter vampires &gt; eye-liner pirates.
Does this invention change this?
Will glitter vampires now be able to overpower both eye-liner pirates and trench-coat ninjas?
Or does the "solar" aspect of these tiny solar cells make them useless, even deadly, to glitter vampires?This doesn't change anything.
Vampires can wear them, but they won't get energy from the sun, only candlelight.
It's just like the speaker-laden trench-coats, or pro-football grade eye-liner.
Ninjas can't sneak while blaring music, and eye-liner's only half-useful when you're wearing an eye-patch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543472</id>
	<title>Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard</title>
	<author>fedos</author>
	<datestamp>1261666320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget the two standards of measurement from the world of geography: Texas and Rhode Island.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the two standards of measurement from the world of geography : Texas and Rhode Island .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the two standards of measurement from the world of geography: Texas and Rhode Island.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544442</id>
	<title>Re:When can I buy it</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1261674000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> If I can't buy products that use it at my local hardware store or via Amazon for my iphone/laptop/electronic device, it might as well not exist.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... The REAL story would be an announcement of a product that will be SOLD.</i></p><p>Please turn in your nerd card on the way out the door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I ca n't buy products that use it at my local hardware store or via Amazon for my iphone/laptop/electronic device , it might as well not exist .
... The REAL story would be an announcement of a product that will be SOLD.Please turn in your nerd card on the way out the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If I can't buy products that use it at my local hardware store or via Amazon for my iphone/laptop/electronic device, it might as well not exist.
... The REAL story would be an announcement of a product that will be SOLD.Please turn in your nerd card on the way out the door.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543950</id>
	<title>Getting close to Nanosolar</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1261670640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reduction in material use is very important for silicon.  Nanosolar is at the point where its solar cells are a smaller cost component in solar panels than the glass in the panels.  <a href="http://www.nanosolar.com/sites/default/files/NanosolarCellWhitePaper.pdf" title="nanosolar.com">http://www.nanosolar.com/sites/default/files/NanosolarCellWhitePaper.pdf</a> [nanosolar.com]  To compete, silicon needs to do the same.  In some ways, thin film amorphous silicon does this, but the low efficiency means that you need more glass to generate the same amount of power.  Crystalline silicon with low material requirements and higher efficiency than Nanosolar's material will likely deliver a lower price point than Nanosolar or First Solar's thin film technology because the cost driver will be MW/ton of glass rather than the cost of the PV material, the cost region that the thin film producers are exploring already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reduction in material use is very important for silicon .
Nanosolar is at the point where its solar cells are a smaller cost component in solar panels than the glass in the panels .
http : //www.nanosolar.com/sites/default/files/NanosolarCellWhitePaper.pdf [ nanosolar.com ] To compete , silicon needs to do the same .
In some ways , thin film amorphous silicon does this , but the low efficiency means that you need more glass to generate the same amount of power .
Crystalline silicon with low material requirements and higher efficiency than Nanosolar 's material will likely deliver a lower price point than Nanosolar or First Solar 's thin film technology because the cost driver will be MW/ton of glass rather than the cost of the PV material , the cost region that the thin film producers are exploring already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reduction in material use is very important for silicon.
Nanosolar is at the point where its solar cells are a smaller cost component in solar panels than the glass in the panels.
http://www.nanosolar.com/sites/default/files/NanosolarCellWhitePaper.pdf [nanosolar.com]  To compete, silicon needs to do the same.
In some ways, thin film amorphous silicon does this, but the low efficiency means that you need more glass to generate the same amount of power.
Crystalline silicon with low material requirements and higher efficiency than Nanosolar's material will likely deliver a lower price point than Nanosolar or First Solar's thin film technology because the cost driver will be MW/ton of glass rather than the cost of the PV material, the cost region that the thin film producers are exploring already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543402</id>
	<title>PR BS</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1261665600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One hundred times less material?  More efficient?  Glitter?</p><p>Sounds suspiciously like sound bites designed by a PR office for pickup by the press.  I thought that Slashdot editors saw through that sort of malarky.</p><p>I'm going to go out on a limb: does anyone know if the limiting factor in determining the costs of a solar cell is the amount of material used?  I had thought it was the intensive processing required to create a solar cell, rather than the cost of the silicon, which, thanks to the gargantuan and heroic efforts of integrated circuit manufacturers, is vanishingly small for incredibly high quality (what other industry delivers seven 9s purity?).  If the amount of material isn't relevant, then reducing it by a factor of 100 isn't that interesting, is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One hundred times less material ?
More efficient ?
Glitter ? Sounds suspiciously like sound bites designed by a PR office for pickup by the press .
I thought that Slashdot editors saw through that sort of malarky.I 'm going to go out on a limb : does anyone know if the limiting factor in determining the costs of a solar cell is the amount of material used ?
I had thought it was the intensive processing required to create a solar cell , rather than the cost of the silicon , which , thanks to the gargantuan and heroic efforts of integrated circuit manufacturers , is vanishingly small for incredibly high quality ( what other industry delivers seven 9s purity ? ) .
If the amount of material is n't relevant , then reducing it by a factor of 100 is n't that interesting , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One hundred times less material?
More efficient?
Glitter?Sounds suspiciously like sound bites designed by a PR office for pickup by the press.
I thought that Slashdot editors saw through that sort of malarky.I'm going to go out on a limb: does anyone know if the limiting factor in determining the costs of a solar cell is the amount of material used?
I had thought it was the intensive processing required to create a solar cell, rather than the cost of the silicon, which, thanks to the gargantuan and heroic efforts of integrated circuit manufacturers, is vanishingly small for incredibly high quality (what other industry delivers seven 9s purity?).
If the amount of material isn't relevant, then reducing it by a factor of 100 isn't that interesting, is it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543664</id>
	<title>Re:Great where can I buy this</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1261668480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cells themselves seem to be really easy to get, just not completed panels.</p><p><a href="http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/products.asp?dept=1174" title="goldmine-e...oducts.com">http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/products.asp?dept=1174</a> [goldmine-e...oducts.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cells themselves seem to be really easy to get , just not completed panels.http : //www.goldmine-elec-products.com/products.asp ? dept = 1174 [ goldmine-e...oducts.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cells themselves seem to be really easy to get, just not completed panels.http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/products.asp?dept=1174 [goldmine-e...oducts.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543374</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency of current cells less than 1\%????</title>
	<author>nloop</author>
	<datestamp>1261665180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafers</p></div><p>from the article: As of now the solar cells are producing energy with 14.9 percent efficiency, which is pretty great compared to off-the-shelf commercial modules which range from 13 to 20 percent.<br> <br>Gotta read them things!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafersfrom the article : As of now the solar cells are producing energy with 14.9 percent efficiency , which is pretty great compared to off-the-shelf commercial modules which range from 13 to 20 percent .
Got ta read them things !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafersfrom the article: As of now the solar cells are producing energy with 14.9 percent efficiency, which is pretty great compared to off-the-shelf commercial modules which range from 13 to 20 percent.
Gotta read them things!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298</id>
	<title>cheap highpower photocells, the ultimate vaporwear</title>
	<author>nloop</author>
	<datestamp>1261664220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone else notice every few months an amazing breakthrough in solar cells that will increase solar efficiency by 10^x power or lower the cost to nearly free?  Meanwhile, the solar panels for useful applications are still expensive and space consuming?
<br> <br>
<a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/10/1755250" title="slashdot.org">I'm</a> [slashdot.org]
<a href="http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/09/1532243" title="slashdot.org">kind</a> [slashdot.org]
<a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/08/21/2046206.shtml" title="slashdot.org">of</a> [slashdot.org]
<a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/05/1952256" title="slashdot.org">getting</a> [slashdot.org]
<a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/01/2120242&amp;from=rss" title="slashdot.org">tired</a> [slashdot.org]
<a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/18/177238" title="slashdot.org">of</a> [slashdot.org]
<a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/21/1649213" title="slashdot.org">it.</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else notice every few months an amazing breakthrough in solar cells that will increase solar efficiency by 10 ^ x power or lower the cost to nearly free ?
Meanwhile , the solar panels for useful applications are still expensive and space consuming ?
I 'm [ slashdot.org ] kind [ slashdot.org ] of [ slashdot.org ] getting [ slashdot.org ] tired [ slashdot.org ] of [ slashdot.org ] it .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else notice every few months an amazing breakthrough in solar cells that will increase solar efficiency by 10^x power or lower the cost to nearly free?
Meanwhile, the solar panels for useful applications are still expensive and space consuming?
I'm [slashdot.org]
kind [slashdot.org]
of [slashdot.org]
getting [slashdot.org]
tired [slashdot.org]
of [slashdot.org]
it.
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543314</id>
	<title>100th the size?</title>
	<author>desmogod</author>
	<datestamp>1261664520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>,quote.The glitter-sized solar sequins are made from crystalline silicon and use 100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafers<p>Does this mean they are also 100th of the size of a contemporary cell with the same output ratings?
If so, that's a very impressive figure and I would be quite excited about this tech.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The solar cells could be incorporated into unusual shapes and materials such as <b>tents</b>, building facades, and clothing, making it possible for people to <b>recharge cell phones</b> and other electronic devices as they walk around or rest.</p></div><p>The last thing I want to worry about whilst camping is even having a cell phone turned on, let alone recharging it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>,quote.The glitter-sized solar sequins are made from crystalline silicon and use 100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafersDoes this mean they are also 100th of the size of a contemporary cell with the same output ratings ?
If so , that 's a very impressive figure and I would be quite excited about this tech.The solar cells could be incorporated into unusual shapes and materials such as tents , building facades , and clothing , making it possible for people to recharge cell phones and other electronic devices as they walk around or rest.The last thing I want to worry about whilst camping is even having a cell phone turned on , let alone recharging it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>,quote.The glitter-sized solar sequins are made from crystalline silicon and use 100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafersDoes this mean they are also 100th of the size of a contemporary cell with the same output ratings?
If so, that's a very impressive figure and I would be quite excited about this tech.The solar cells could be incorporated into unusual shapes and materials such as tents, building facades, and clothing, making it possible for people to recharge cell phones and other electronic devices as they walk around or rest.The last thing I want to worry about whilst camping is even having a cell phone turned on, let alone recharging it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30546616</id>
	<title>Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard</title>
	<author>mikerm19</author>
	<datestamp>1261645980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does buttload measure up to shit-ton?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does buttload measure up to shit-ton ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does buttload measure up to shit-ton?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543920</id>
	<title>What was left unsaid...</title>
	<author>NotOverHere</author>
	<datestamp>1261670340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and have promising new applications...</p></div><p>... that are as early as only ten years away</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and have promising new applications...... that are as early as only ten years away</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... and have promising new applications...... that are as early as only ten years away
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30573600</id>
	<title>Show time!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262027580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bring on the electric strippers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bring on the electric strippers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bring on the electric strippers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30547010</id>
	<title>Sliver PV panel technology</title>
	<author>godel\_56</author>
	<datestamp>1261650060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For an alternative technology that also claims to use much less silicon, check out this link.

<p> <a href="http://www.originenergy.com.au/1234/About-SLIVER" title="originenergy.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.originenergy.com.au/1234/About-SLIVER</a> [originenergy.com.au] </p><p>Briefly they cut thick wafers from the boule (typically 1mm to 2mm) then mill vertically into the the
wafer. They turn the cut sliver side-on and process it into a conventional solar cell then glue multiple
slivers into panels. Each sliver is only 20 to 50 microns thick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For an alternative technology that also claims to use much less silicon , check out this link .
http : //www.originenergy.com.au/1234/About-SLIVER [ originenergy.com.au ] Briefly they cut thick wafers from the boule ( typically 1mm to 2mm ) then mill vertically into the the wafer .
They turn the cut sliver side-on and process it into a conventional solar cell then glue multiple slivers into panels .
Each sliver is only 20 to 50 microns thick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For an alternative technology that also claims to use much less silicon, check out this link.
http://www.originenergy.com.au/1234/About-SLIVER [originenergy.com.au] Briefly they cut thick wafers from the boule (typically 1mm to 2mm) then mill vertically into the the
wafer.
They turn the cut sliver side-on and process it into a conventional solar cell then glue multiple
slivers into panels.
Each sliver is only 20 to 50 microns thick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543686</id>
	<title>Re:cheap highpower photocells, the ultimate vaporw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261668660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...that will increase solar efficiency by 10^x power or lower the cost to nearly free?"</p><p>In a word: no.<br>Exaggeration gets you nowhere.</p><p>In the mean time nanosolar is mass producing at $1 per Watt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...that will increase solar efficiency by 10 ^ x power or lower the cost to nearly free ?
" In a word : no.Exaggeration gets you nowhere.In the mean time nanosolar is mass producing at $ 1 per Watt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...that will increase solar efficiency by 10^x power or lower the cost to nearly free?
"In a word: no.Exaggeration gets you nowhere.In the mean time nanosolar is mass producing at $1 per Watt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543424</id>
	<title>Re:Everything old is new again?</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1261665960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>apparently you haven't seen twilight with glitter power vampires.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>apparently you have n't seen twilight with glitter power vampires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>apparently you haven't seen twilight with glitter power vampires.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544904</id>
	<title>Re:Let's get the econ right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261676760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Nothing in the history of the world that is better than an existing product has been sold for less."</p><p>Follow the price/performance curves of microprocessors or RAM.  Yes everything is sold at what the market can bare but when development is fast enough competition increases performance and drives down costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Nothing in the history of the world that is better than an existing product has been sold for less .
" Follow the price/performance curves of microprocessors or RAM .
Yes everything is sold at what the market can bare but when development is fast enough competition increases performance and drives down costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Nothing in the history of the world that is better than an existing product has been sold for less.
"Follow the price/performance curves of microprocessors or RAM.
Yes everything is sold at what the market can bare but when development is fast enough competition increases performance and drives down costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544586</id>
	<title>Clothing?</title>
	<author>alexandre</author>
	<datestamp>1261674960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it that every innovation has to mention clothing as a potential market to sound real?<br>Where is my aluminum suit again?</p><p>And will this actually get something useful to market like a 50W 0.1m solar panel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that every innovation has to mention clothing as a potential market to sound real ? Where is my aluminum suit again ? And will this actually get something useful to market like a 50W 0.1m solar panel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that every innovation has to mention clothing as a potential market to sound real?Where is my aluminum suit again?And will this actually get something useful to market like a 50W 0.1m solar panel?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543282</id>
	<title>Re:Everything old is new again?</title>
	<author>ozmanjusri</author>
	<datestamp>1261663980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>And I thought glitter went out most of a decade ago. </i>
<p>
No-ooo!
</p><p>
It's for solar powered ponies silly!
</p><p>
Muahhhh darlings...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I thought glitter went out most of a decade ago .
No-ooo ! It 's for solar powered ponies silly !
Muahhhh darlings.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I thought glitter went out most of a decade ago.
No-ooo!

It's for solar powered ponies silly!
Muahhhh darlings...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543250</id>
	<title>from my lap top</title>
	<author>cntThnkofAname</author>
	<datestamp>1261663440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... I congratulate you and wish your success to get to the consumer market so I may browser<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. longer!</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I congratulate you and wish your success to get to the consumer market so I may browser / .
longer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I congratulate you and wish your success to get to the consumer market so I may browser /.
longer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543296</id>
	<title>Great where can I buy this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261664220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over the past 5-10 years so many new efficient solar panels have been designed but you can't buy any of them.<br> <br>

The best solar panel I can reasonably get my hands on is a a 15\% efficient overpriced 100W monocrystalline panel off ebay for about $300 so it will take about 10 years even in Florida to break even. <br> <br>

The strange thing is I distinctly remember reading a magazine article that mentioned the breakthrough that got solar panels from 10\% efficiency to 15\% and that was in 1999. So that means we should have the ones mentioned in this article by about 2017 if we are lucky. By that time of course we will be reading about 125\% efficient solar panels that not only convert 100\% of the energy from the sun but also suck up a substantial amount of ambient heat and convert that to electricity as well</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the past 5-10 years so many new efficient solar panels have been designed but you ca n't buy any of them .
The best solar panel I can reasonably get my hands on is a a 15 \ % efficient overpriced 100W monocrystalline panel off ebay for about $ 300 so it will take about 10 years even in Florida to break even .
The strange thing is I distinctly remember reading a magazine article that mentioned the breakthrough that got solar panels from 10 \ % efficiency to 15 \ % and that was in 1999 .
So that means we should have the ones mentioned in this article by about 2017 if we are lucky .
By that time of course we will be reading about 125 \ % efficient solar panels that not only convert 100 \ % of the energy from the sun but also suck up a substantial amount of ambient heat and convert that to electricity as well</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the past 5-10 years so many new efficient solar panels have been designed but you can't buy any of them.
The best solar panel I can reasonably get my hands on is a a 15\% efficient overpriced 100W monocrystalline panel off ebay for about $300 so it will take about 10 years even in Florida to break even.
The strange thing is I distinctly remember reading a magazine article that mentioned the breakthrough that got solar panels from 10\% efficiency to 15\% and that was in 1999.
So that means we should have the ones mentioned in this article by about 2017 if we are lucky.
By that time of course we will be reading about 125\% efficient solar panels that not only convert 100\% of the energy from the sun but also suck up a substantial amount of ambient heat and convert that to electricity as well</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30546038</id>
	<title>material cost not the problem</title>
	<author>rechtco</author>
	<datestamp>1261684200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The packaging, housing, installation, and connective materials are the major costs of a solar cell. For a long time, the cost of the photovoltaic material has not been the major economic factor inhibiting commercial use. Until someone figures out how to increase the photovoltaic output per cm2, such as in semiconductors transistors per cm2, solar cells will not achieve commercial acceptance. The new process may use less material, but a 6 inch photocell will still create about the same amount of electricity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The packaging , housing , installation , and connective materials are the major costs of a solar cell .
For a long time , the cost of the photovoltaic material has not been the major economic factor inhibiting commercial use .
Until someone figures out how to increase the photovoltaic output per cm2 , such as in semiconductors transistors per cm2 , solar cells will not achieve commercial acceptance .
The new process may use less material , but a 6 inch photocell will still create about the same amount of electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The packaging, housing, installation, and connective materials are the major costs of a solar cell.
For a long time, the cost of the photovoltaic material has not been the major economic factor inhibiting commercial use.
Until someone figures out how to increase the photovoltaic output per cm2, such as in semiconductors transistors per cm2, solar cells will not achieve commercial acceptance.
The new process may use less material, but a 6 inch photocell will still create about the same amount of electricity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543502</id>
	<title>"TOP....MEN..."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261666680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd imagine that in the same warehouse with the Ark of the Covenant, the process for Cold Fusion, the Cure for Cancer, and a thousand other sources of cheap energy....a spot for this gem is being cleared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd imagine that in the same warehouse with the Ark of the Covenant , the process for Cold Fusion , the Cure for Cancer , and a thousand other sources of cheap energy....a spot for this gem is being cleared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd imagine that in the same warehouse with the Ark of the Covenant, the process for Cold Fusion, the Cure for Cancer, and a thousand other sources of cheap energy....a spot for this gem is being cleared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544832</id>
	<title>Re:14.9 really any good ?</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1261676400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're mistakenly using watts per lumen, which is very similar to watts per pound (the important factor in space).  For the vast majority of energy production, the important factor is watts per dollar.</p><p>Glitter sized cells scare me because they must be approaching the point where the kerf size is exceptionally relevant to the product size.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're mistakenly using watts per lumen , which is very similar to watts per pound ( the important factor in space ) .
For the vast majority of energy production , the important factor is watts per dollar.Glitter sized cells scare me because they must be approaching the point where the kerf size is exceptionally relevant to the product size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're mistakenly using watts per lumen, which is very similar to watts per pound (the important factor in space).
For the vast majority of energy production, the important factor is watts per dollar.Glitter sized cells scare me because they must be approaching the point where the kerf size is exceptionally relevant to the product size.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545620</id>
	<title>Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1261681500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*must fight urge to put a joke about Garry Glitter in this comment*</p><p>*must fight...*</p><p> <b>HEEEEYYY</b> *head explodes into a cloud of glitter*</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* must fight urge to put a joke about Garry Glitter in this comment * * must fight... * HEEEEYYY * head explodes into a cloud of glitter * Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*must fight urge to put a joke about Garry Glitter in this comment**must fight...* HEEEEYYY *head explodes into a cloud of glitter*Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30566072</id>
	<title>Just Plain Wrong</title>
	<author>tomanoncow</author>
	<datestamp>1261912800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and I quote MikeChino, "glitter-sized solar cells made from crystalline silicon that use 100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafers". What this indicates is that a snowflake sized cell will produce as much electricity as a 6-inch square solar wafer.
Go to the Sandia site and look at the original article and see that they said it will operate at roughly the same efficiency as a 6-inch solar wafer, NOT produce the same amount of electricity.
MikeChino, you've led us down the Just Plain Wrong path.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I quote MikeChino , " glitter-sized solar cells made from crystalline silicon that use 100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafers " .
What this indicates is that a snowflake sized cell will produce as much electricity as a 6-inch square solar wafer .
Go to the Sandia site and look at the original article and see that they said it will operate at roughly the same efficiency as a 6-inch solar wafer , NOT produce the same amount of electricity .
MikeChino , you 've led us down the Just Plain Wrong path .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I quote MikeChino, "glitter-sized solar cells made from crystalline silicon that use 100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafers".
What this indicates is that a snowflake sized cell will produce as much electricity as a 6-inch square solar wafer.
Go to the Sandia site and look at the original article and see that they said it will operate at roughly the same efficiency as a 6-inch solar wafer, NOT produce the same amount of electricity.
MikeChino, you've led us down the Just Plain Wrong path.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543880</id>
	<title>Let's get the econ right</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1261670100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm awfully tired of these articles predicting something will be better, cheaper to make and therefore much cheaper to buy.</p><p>Nothing in the history of the world that is better than an existing product has been sold for less.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Things end up being sold at a price very near what they're worth to the end user, which often has no relation to their cost of manufacture.  Think of perfume, diamonds, or celebrity-diet plans.</p><p>Also for something exposed to the elements that has to last many years, there are so many ways to fail.   Temperature cycles, moisture, UV, hail, corrosion-- all of these have to protected against,<br>and the cost of these goes up as you make the cells smaller and more fragile.</p><p>It's swell to have better (in some sense) cells, but that's just a small part of the overall picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm awfully tired of these articles predicting something will be better , cheaper to make and therefore much cheaper to buy.Nothing in the history of the world that is better than an existing product has been sold for less .
    Things end up being sold at a price very near what they 're worth to the end user , which often has no relation to their cost of manufacture .
Think of perfume , diamonds , or celebrity-diet plans.Also for something exposed to the elements that has to last many years , there are so many ways to fail .
Temperature cycles , moisture , UV , hail , corrosion-- all of these have to protected against,and the cost of these goes up as you make the cells smaller and more fragile.It 's swell to have better ( in some sense ) cells , but that 's just a small part of the overall picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm awfully tired of these articles predicting something will be better, cheaper to make and therefore much cheaper to buy.Nothing in the history of the world that is better than an existing product has been sold for less.
    Things end up being sold at a price very near what they're worth to the end user, which often has no relation to their cost of manufacture.
Think of perfume, diamonds, or celebrity-diet plans.Also for something exposed to the elements that has to last many years, there are so many ways to fail.
Temperature cycles, moisture, UV, hail, corrosion-- all of these have to protected against,and the cost of these goes up as you make the cells smaller and more fragile.It's swell to have better (in some sense) cells, but that's just a small part of the overall picture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543826</id>
	<title>green energy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261669800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the chemicals used in its production are probably so toxic, they kill everything in a five mile radius when they decompose.  How much do you want to bet that in the race for clean, free energy they felt free to irrevocably contaminate a different sector of the world?  Worse, they'll probably market it as green energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the chemicals used in its production are probably so toxic , they kill everything in a five mile radius when they decompose .
How much do you want to bet that in the race for clean , free energy they felt free to irrevocably contaminate a different sector of the world ?
Worse , they 'll probably market it as green energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the chemicals used in its production are probably so toxic, they kill everything in a five mile radius when they decompose.
How much do you want to bet that in the race for clean, free energy they felt free to irrevocably contaminate a different sector of the world?
Worse, they'll probably market it as green energy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544134</id>
	<title>The real press release</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1261672020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the real sandia labs press release with more detail</p><p><a href="http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/news\_releases/glitter-sized-solar-photovoltaics-produce-competitive-results/" title="sandia.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/news\_releases/glitter-sized-solar-photovoltaics-produce-competitive-results/</a> [sandia.gov]</p><p>They suggest using an industrial "pick and place" machine to assemble the tiny cells onto a substrate for making the panel, at a cost of 1/10th a penny a "glitter", and you can also add a concentrator above each cell</p><p>So I don't know with government work like this, do they license patents, is it automatically open (it should be) or what? Seems like a nice breakthrough, but it still just adds to the list of other incredible breakthroughs that have lead to not much at all for reducing watts per dollar at the retail level with solar PV in general. If some one company gets it and it is locked up in a for profit patent for years and years, they will just reduce their own costs then charge the normal global prices we have seen for the past long time, around ~ five bucks per watt. None of these dozens of breakthroughs we have seen are going to be all that useful until that situation changes.</p><p>Energy independence is a national security and economic recovery issue, (along with all this climate change jazz they keep going on about) so maybe this tech will be freely licensed to drop prices and actually get this stuff to the end consumer in mass quantities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the real sandia labs press release with more detailhttp : //www.sandia.gov/news/resources/news \ _releases/glitter-sized-solar-photovoltaics-produce-competitive-results/ [ sandia.gov ] They suggest using an industrial " pick and place " machine to assemble the tiny cells onto a substrate for making the panel , at a cost of 1/10th a penny a " glitter " , and you can also add a concentrator above each cellSo I do n't know with government work like this , do they license patents , is it automatically open ( it should be ) or what ?
Seems like a nice breakthrough , but it still just adds to the list of other incredible breakthroughs that have lead to not much at all for reducing watts per dollar at the retail level with solar PV in general .
If some one company gets it and it is locked up in a for profit patent for years and years , they will just reduce their own costs then charge the normal global prices we have seen for the past long time , around ~ five bucks per watt .
None of these dozens of breakthroughs we have seen are going to be all that useful until that situation changes.Energy independence is a national security and economic recovery issue , ( along with all this climate change jazz they keep going on about ) so maybe this tech will be freely licensed to drop prices and actually get this stuff to the end consumer in mass quantities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the real sandia labs press release with more detailhttp://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/news\_releases/glitter-sized-solar-photovoltaics-produce-competitive-results/ [sandia.gov]They suggest using an industrial "pick and place" machine to assemble the tiny cells onto a substrate for making the panel, at a cost of 1/10th a penny a "glitter", and you can also add a concentrator above each cellSo I don't know with government work like this, do they license patents, is it automatically open (it should be) or what?
Seems like a nice breakthrough, but it still just adds to the list of other incredible breakthroughs that have lead to not much at all for reducing watts per dollar at the retail level with solar PV in general.
If some one company gets it and it is locked up in a for profit patent for years and years, they will just reduce their own costs then charge the normal global prices we have seen for the past long time, around ~ five bucks per watt.
None of these dozens of breakthroughs we have seen are going to be all that useful until that situation changes.Energy independence is a national security and economic recovery issue, (along with all this climate change jazz they keep going on about) so maybe this tech will be freely licensed to drop prices and actually get this stuff to the end consumer in mass quantities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543268</id>
	<title>Where the hell is my Nanosolar(tm)</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261663800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where the hell is my Nanosolar panel? They promised they would have them for sale to residential customers way back in 2009. It's almost 2010 now, and only <em>one</em> panel has been sold to an individual, on eBay. It has many of the same advantages, plus it's not crystalline. But they won't sell them to the public...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where the hell is my Nanosolar panel ?
They promised they would have them for sale to residential customers way back in 2009 .
It 's almost 2010 now , and only one panel has been sold to an individual , on eBay .
It has many of the same advantages , plus it 's not crystalline .
But they wo n't sell them to the public.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where the hell is my Nanosolar panel?
They promised they would have them for sale to residential customers way back in 2009.
It's almost 2010 now, and only one panel has been sold to an individual, on eBay.
It has many of the same advantages, plus it's not crystalline.
But they won't sell them to the public...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543660</id>
	<title>Fine but...</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1261668480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where is my flying car promised to me in the 1960s'?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is my flying car promised to me in the 1960s ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is my flying car promised to me in the 1960s'?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30547704</id>
	<title>Re:cheap highpower photocells, the ultimate vaporw</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1261655880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Does anyone else notice every few months an amazing breakthrough in solar cells that will increase solar efficiency by 10^x power or lower the cost to nearly free? Meanwhile, the solar panels for useful applications are still expensive and space consuming? </i></p><p>There are two kinds of breakthroughs - ones that can be used to go to manufacturing and ones that can be used to go to venture capital.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else notice every few months an amazing breakthrough in solar cells that will increase solar efficiency by 10 ^ x power or lower the cost to nearly free ?
Meanwhile , the solar panels for useful applications are still expensive and space consuming ?
There are two kinds of breakthroughs - ones that can be used to go to manufacturing and ones that can be used to go to venture capital .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else notice every few months an amazing breakthrough in solar cells that will increase solar efficiency by 10^x power or lower the cost to nearly free?
Meanwhile, the solar panels for useful applications are still expensive and space consuming?
There are two kinds of breakthroughs - ones that can be used to go to manufacturing and ones that can be used to go to venture capital.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543280</id>
	<title>14.9 really any good ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261663980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As of now the solar cells are producing energy with 14.9 percent efficiency, which is pretty great compared to off-the-shelf commercial modules which range from 13 to 20 percent.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

I guess that must be good for the size,  but Boeing announced <a href="http://spacefellowship.com/news/art12121/boeing-subsidiary-spectrolab-achieves-world-record-solar-cell-efficiency.html" title="spacefellowship.com">41.6 percent efficient cells this year </a> [spacefellowship.com]

and I wonder how the ex NASA employee &amp; inventor of the super soaker is getting on with his work he claims could hit <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news119107136.html" title="physorg.com">up to 60\% </a> [physorg.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As of now the solar cells are producing energy with 14.9 percent efficiency , which is pretty great compared to off-the-shelf commercial modules which range from 13 to 20 percent .
I guess that must be good for the size , but Boeing announced 41.6 percent efficient cells this year [ spacefellowship.com ] and I wonder how the ex NASA employee &amp; inventor of the super soaker is getting on with his work he claims could hit up to 60 \ % [ physorg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As of now the solar cells are producing energy with 14.9 percent efficiency, which is pretty great compared to off-the-shelf commercial modules which range from 13 to 20 percent.
I guess that must be good for the size,  but Boeing announced 41.6 percent efficient cells this year  [spacefellowship.com]

and I wonder how the ex NASA employee &amp; inventor of the super soaker is getting on with his work he claims could hit up to 60\%  [physorg.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543510</id>
	<title>Re:14.9 really any good ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261666740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spectrolab's cells are nowhere close to cost-effective for consumer (or even business) use on earth.  They are a niche product to be used for satellites, other spacecraft, etc.  The goal of Spectrolab's cells is to maximize power as a function of mass and volume.<br> <br>The goal of consumer-grade systems is to maximize power as a function of cost (including maintenance, etc).<br> <br>Johnson's system (the super-soaker guy) is simply a cell that harnesses a temperature gradient to generate electricity.  He claims up to 60\% efficiency, but the system requires an operating temp on the high-temp electrode stack of the cell of about 600 degrees C to hit this efficiency, which would require the use of a parabolic mirror setup -- hardly fit for consumer use.  In truth, his cell isn't solar at all -- it's more like a special kind of fuel cell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spectrolab 's cells are nowhere close to cost-effective for consumer ( or even business ) use on earth .
They are a niche product to be used for satellites , other spacecraft , etc .
The goal of Spectrolab 's cells is to maximize power as a function of mass and volume .
The goal of consumer-grade systems is to maximize power as a function of cost ( including maintenance , etc ) .
Johnson 's system ( the super-soaker guy ) is simply a cell that harnesses a temperature gradient to generate electricity .
He claims up to 60 \ % efficiency , but the system requires an operating temp on the high-temp electrode stack of the cell of about 600 degrees C to hit this efficiency , which would require the use of a parabolic mirror setup -- hardly fit for consumer use .
In truth , his cell is n't solar at all -- it 's more like a special kind of fuel cell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spectrolab's cells are nowhere close to cost-effective for consumer (or even business) use on earth.
They are a niche product to be used for satellites, other spacecraft, etc.
The goal of Spectrolab's cells is to maximize power as a function of mass and volume.
The goal of consumer-grade systems is to maximize power as a function of cost (including maintenance, etc).
Johnson's system (the super-soaker guy) is simply a cell that harnesses a temperature gradient to generate electricity.
He claims up to 60\% efficiency, but the system requires an operating temp on the high-temp electrode stack of the cell of about 600 degrees C to hit this efficiency, which would require the use of a parabolic mirror setup -- hardly fit for consumer use.
In truth, his cell isn't solar at all -- it's more like a special kind of fuel cell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543348</id>
	<title>Re:cheap highpower photocells, the ultimate vaporw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261664820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a reason for this.  Up until about the past 5 years there has been minimal manufacturing capacity globally.  Everything was limited to laboratory experiments at universities or venture capital companies that like press releases.   Now that we actually have companies making cells in volume the $/Watt has been driven down immensely.  Take a look at first solar currently running somewhere near $0.90/Watt (solar cell production not end cost to consumer)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a reason for this .
Up until about the past 5 years there has been minimal manufacturing capacity globally .
Everything was limited to laboratory experiments at universities or venture capital companies that like press releases .
Now that we actually have companies making cells in volume the $ /Watt has been driven down immensely .
Take a look at first solar currently running somewhere near $ 0.90/Watt ( solar cell production not end cost to consumer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a reason for this.
Up until about the past 5 years there has been minimal manufacturing capacity globally.
Everything was limited to laboratory experiments at universities or venture capital companies that like press releases.
Now that we actually have companies making cells in volume the $/Watt has been driven down immensely.
Take a look at first solar currently running somewhere near $0.90/Watt (solar cell production not end cost to consumer)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544264</id>
	<title>Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard</title>
	<author>Graff</author>
	<datestamp>1261672800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still want to know how you use 100 times less material. So you have x amount of material, you use 100 times less than that:</p><p>x - 100x = -99x</p><p>It gives back 99 times the original amount? Hmmmm...</p><p>Maybe they meant to say that it uses one hundredth the amount of material? Nah, if they meant that they'd have said it correctly, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still want to know how you use 100 times less material .
So you have x amount of material , you use 100 times less than that : x - 100x = -99xIt gives back 99 times the original amount ?
Hmmmm...Maybe they meant to say that it uses one hundredth the amount of material ?
Nah , if they meant that they 'd have said it correctly , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still want to know how you use 100 times less material.
So you have x amount of material, you use 100 times less than that:x - 100x = -99xIt gives back 99 times the original amount?
Hmmmm...Maybe they meant to say that it uses one hundredth the amount of material?
Nah, if they meant that they'd have said it correctly, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543384</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency of current cells less than 1\%????</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261665360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they meant 1 / 100 more efficient MATERIAL usage, given the same amount of starting silicon, to produce the same amount of electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they meant 1 / 100 more efficient MATERIAL usage , given the same amount of starting silicon , to produce the same amount of electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they meant 1 / 100 more efficient MATERIAL usage, given the same amount of starting silicon, to produce the same amount of electricity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545606</id>
	<title>Re:Fine but...</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1261681380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are flying cars for around $120,000<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but the gotcha is that you need a pilot's license and still need permission to "take off" from an airport as well as submit a flight plan to the FAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are flying cars for around $ 120,000 ... but the gotcha is that you need a pilot 's license and still need permission to " take off " from an airport as well as submit a flight plan to the FAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are flying cars for around $120,000 ... but the gotcha is that you need a pilot's license and still need permission to "take off" from an airport as well as submit a flight plan to the FAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544106</id>
	<title>Re:How do you wire them up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261671780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd like to know how one would go about wiring these tiny solar cells up.  It probably wouldn't be too bad on a flat surface but It doesn't seem like it would be very easy on flexible surfaces like textiles.</p></div><p>We need a way to automatically orient them at will, using perhaps an electric field, if we could make this specks act like electric dipoles (perhaps when shined upon so that they separate their internal electric charge). Then, a conductive, elastic adhesive that binds only to particular kind (shape) of surface (which would be deposited on cell terminals) would be used to bind them in series or in parallel to conductive threads.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or something like that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to know how one would go about wiring these tiny solar cells up .
It probably would n't be too bad on a flat surface but It does n't seem like it would be very easy on flexible surfaces like textiles.We need a way to automatically orient them at will , using perhaps an electric field , if we could make this specks act like electric dipoles ( perhaps when shined upon so that they separate their internal electric charge ) .
Then , a conductive , elastic adhesive that binds only to particular kind ( shape ) of surface ( which would be deposited on cell terminals ) would be used to bind them in series or in parallel to conductive threads .
... or something like that .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to know how one would go about wiring these tiny solar cells up.
It probably wouldn't be too bad on a flat surface but It doesn't seem like it would be very easy on flexible surfaces like textiles.We need a way to automatically orient them at will, using perhaps an electric field, if we could make this specks act like electric dipoles (perhaps when shined upon so that they separate their internal electric charge).
Then, a conductive, elastic adhesive that binds only to particular kind (shape) of surface (which would be deposited on cell terminals) would be used to bind them in series or in parallel to conductive threads.
... or something like that ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545010</id>
	<title>JTEC</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1261677540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The most frustrating thing about that, is that he is working on the solar side of this. In my mind that is just foolish to focus his efforts there. Instead, he should be making that work with Natural Gas, Gas, or Diesel. The reason is that if takes that, combines it with a battery that will drive a vehicle say 5 miles, and obviously an electric drive system, he will FAR FAR outstrip the ICE. The motor operates at 95+\% and the battery at least as high as 90\%.  If his JTEC will do just 50\%, then his total is around 40\% efficiency, which is MUCH higher than ICE's total efficincy of under 25\%. I suspect that his unit would also be much cleaner to burning. In time, batteries/Ultracaps would get cheaper and replace the JTEC. But by then, he would have it tuned for SOlar, geo-thermal, and maybe nukes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most frustrating thing about that , is that he is working on the solar side of this .
In my mind that is just foolish to focus his efforts there .
Instead , he should be making that work with Natural Gas , Gas , or Diesel .
The reason is that if takes that , combines it with a battery that will drive a vehicle say 5 miles , and obviously an electric drive system , he will FAR FAR outstrip the ICE .
The motor operates at 95 + \ % and the battery at least as high as 90 \ % .
If his JTEC will do just 50 \ % , then his total is around 40 \ % efficiency , which is MUCH higher than ICE 's total efficincy of under 25 \ % .
I suspect that his unit would also be much cleaner to burning .
In time , batteries/Ultracaps would get cheaper and replace the JTEC .
But by then , he would have it tuned for SOlar , geo-thermal , and maybe nukes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most frustrating thing about that, is that he is working on the solar side of this.
In my mind that is just foolish to focus his efforts there.
Instead, he should be making that work with Natural Gas, Gas, or Diesel.
The reason is that if takes that, combines it with a battery that will drive a vehicle say 5 miles, and obviously an electric drive system, he will FAR FAR outstrip the ICE.
The motor operates at 95+\% and the battery at least as high as 90\%.
If his JTEC will do just 50\%, then his total is around 40\% efficiency, which is MUCH higher than ICE's total efficincy of under 25\%.
I suspect that his unit would also be much cleaner to burning.
In time, batteries/Ultracaps would get cheaper and replace the JTEC.
But by then, he would have it tuned for SOlar, geo-thermal, and maybe nukes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244</id>
	<title>glitter - the new nano measurement standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261663380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, we have a new standard of measurement... "glitter"<br>I can handle that.  After all I understood volkswagon-sized meteors, a station wagon full of backup tapes, a library of congress -sized disk farm, and of course the old favorite, a football field sized nuclear storage facility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , we have a new standard of measurement... " glitter " I can handle that .
After all I understood volkswagon-sized meteors , a station wagon full of backup tapes , a library of congress -sized disk farm , and of course the old favorite , a football field sized nuclear storage facility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, we have a new standard of measurement... "glitter"I can handle that.
After all I understood volkswagon-sized meteors, a station wagon full of backup tapes, a library of congress -sized disk farm, and of course the old favorite, a football field sized nuclear storage facility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543682</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1261668600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what about those of us that have an irrational fear of glitter?<br> <br>
The glitter... It's everywhere!  IT"S IN MY EYES!</htmltext>
<tokenext>what about those of us that have an irrational fear of glitter ?
The glitter... It 's everywhere !
IT " S IN MY EYES !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what about those of us that have an irrational fear of glitter?
The glitter... It's everywhere!
IT"S IN MY EYES!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30547670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30552046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30547704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30547138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30546436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30546616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_052252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30547670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30546436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30547704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30547138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30552046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30546616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30545606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_052252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30543664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_052252.30544862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
