<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_08_1643240</id>
	<title>Making a Liquid Invisibility Cloak</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262975820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Researchers at Fudan University in Shanghai, China are proposing a method which could lead to the first soft, tunable metamaterial, the key ingredient in <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18359-how-to-make-a-liquid-invisibility-cloak.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&amp;nsref=online-news">building an invisibility device</a>.  <i>"The fluid proposed by Ji-Ping Huang of Fudan University in Shanghai, China, and colleagues, contains magnetite balls 10 nanometers in diameter, coated with a 5-nanometer-thick layer of silver, possibly with polymer chains attached to keep them from clumping.  In the absence of a magnetic field, such nanoparticles would simply float around in the water, but if a field were introduced, the particles would self-assemble into chains whose lengths depend on the strength of the field, and which can also attract one another to form thicker columns.  The chains and columns would lie along the direction of the magnetic field. If they were oriented vertically in a pool of water, light striking the surface would refract negatively &ndash; bent in way that no natural material can manage."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Researchers at Fudan University in Shanghai , China are proposing a method which could lead to the first soft , tunable metamaterial , the key ingredient in building an invisibility device .
" The fluid proposed by Ji-Ping Huang of Fudan University in Shanghai , China , and colleagues , contains magnetite balls 10 nanometers in diameter , coated with a 5-nanometer-thick layer of silver , possibly with polymer chains attached to keep them from clumping .
In the absence of a magnetic field , such nanoparticles would simply float around in the water , but if a field were introduced , the particles would self-assemble into chains whose lengths depend on the strength of the field , and which can also attract one another to form thicker columns .
The chains and columns would lie along the direction of the magnetic field .
If they were oriented vertically in a pool of water , light striking the surface would refract negatively    bent in way that no natural material can manage .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Researchers at Fudan University in Shanghai, China are proposing a method which could lead to the first soft, tunable metamaterial, the key ingredient in building an invisibility device.
"The fluid proposed by Ji-Ping Huang of Fudan University in Shanghai, China, and colleagues, contains magnetite balls 10 nanometers in diameter, coated with a 5-nanometer-thick layer of silver, possibly with polymer chains attached to keep them from clumping.
In the absence of a magnetic field, such nanoparticles would simply float around in the water, but if a field were introduced, the particles would self-assemble into chains whose lengths depend on the strength of the field, and which can also attract one another to form thicker columns.
The chains and columns would lie along the direction of the magnetic field.
If they were oriented vertically in a pool of water, light striking the surface would refract negatively – bent in way that no natural material can manage.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698186</id>
	<title>Quicksilver?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262980860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So next they will come up with a synthetic gland that can be implanted in a person's head..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So next they will come up with a synthetic gland that can be implanted in a person 's head. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So next they will come up with a synthetic gland that can be implanted in a person's head..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697868</id>
	<title>Liquid Invisibility Cloak?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262979480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been a while but isn't that a shot of Bacardi 151 mixed into a glass of ice tea garnished with a lime?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been a while but is n't that a shot of Bacardi 151 mixed into a glass of ice tea garnished with a lime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been a while but isn't that a shot of Bacardi 151 mixed into a glass of ice tea garnished with a lime?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698008</id>
	<title>Theoretical material with exotic optical effects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262980020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>!= "invisibility cloak"</htmltext>
<tokenext>! = " invisibility cloak "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>!= "invisibility cloak"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698326</id>
	<title>Re:Let's get this over with...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262981340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[Insert lame Harry Potter joke here]</p></div><p>Harry: So we started out last night at the inn pounding liquid invisibility cloaks until Ron looked kinda cute<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Insert lame Harry Potter joke here ] Harry : So we started out last night at the inn pounding liquid invisibility cloaks until Ron looked kinda cute .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Insert lame Harry Potter joke here]Harry: So we started out last night at the inn pounding liquid invisibility cloaks until Ron looked kinda cute ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698138</id>
	<title>Sorry for the lack of photos!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262980620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We poured the material in a jar so that you could see the effects, but unfortunately we now seem to have misplaced it. We'll update as soon as we found it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We poured the material in a jar so that you could see the effects , but unfortunately we now seem to have misplaced it .
We 'll update as soon as we found it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We poured the material in a jar so that you could see the effects, but unfortunately we now seem to have misplaced it.
We'll update as soon as we found it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698604</id>
	<title>Re:What is so great about the invisibility cloak?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1262982720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Your average slashdot reader is:
</p><ul>
  <li>A Harry Potter fan, and sees how useful an invisibility cloak can be in certain situations.</li><li>A star trek fan</li><li>An aspiring Klingon, knows the language, can't make surprise attacks without a cloak shield</li><li>A Linux user</li><li>A user of whole-drive disk encryption</li><li>Has a UPS, lots of batteries, or other form of backup power</li><li>In need of a cloaking device, for that one last piece of the security puzzle (keeping the machine safe from physical hackers)</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your average slashdot reader is : A Harry Potter fan , and sees how useful an invisibility cloak can be in certain situations.A star trek fanAn aspiring Klingon , knows the language , ca n't make surprise attacks without a cloak shieldA Linux userA user of whole-drive disk encryptionHas a UPS , lots of batteries , or other form of backup powerIn need of a cloaking device , for that one last piece of the security puzzle ( keeping the machine safe from physical hackers )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Your average slashdot reader is:

  A Harry Potter fan, and sees how useful an invisibility cloak can be in certain situations.A star trek fanAn aspiring Klingon, knows the language, can't make surprise attacks without a cloak shieldA Linux userA user of whole-drive disk encryptionHas a UPS, lots of batteries, or other form of backup powerIn need of a cloaking device, for that one last piece of the security puzzle (keeping the machine safe from physical hackers)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698554</id>
	<title>Not to stomp on ur parade....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually no, just the fact of being invisible.  In order to be invisible you have to refract all the light that would normally hit the object being invisible, meaning it would be in absolute dark.  You could be invisible in the girls (or guys for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers so persueded) shower room, but you couldn't see a blasted thing.  Any lighted object within the cloak could also, possibly, leak out giving away your concealment.  So even IF  (a big if) the use of, say, an infrared camera, would allow you to see through the cloak, the use of it would give you away as the light from the screen/goggles could give you away.  Not to mention you would have to use some containment of the matrix supporting the nano-particles (the fluid).  A magnetic field strong enough to suspend water (i'm not even sure if there is such) would likely throw off the magnetic particles, so in turn you would need to have some sort of containment beyond the aqueous sphere.  Think fishbowl.  The container (fishbowl) in turn, would be visible being outside the sphere of invisibility.  So you would see this great 'empty' spherical container just sitting there.  Which, logic denotes, means the rat got out, elliciting chaos and panic in said locker room.</p><p>This is just one of the great physics problems that everyone has to come up with an 'answer' to, and get their jollies just from doing that.  If you wanna be invisible in the girls shower room the best bet is still a very small drill and a pinhole camera, as any A/V geek knows all too well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually no , just the fact of being invisible .
In order to be invisible you have to refract all the light that would normally hit the object being invisible , meaning it would be in absolute dark .
You could be invisible in the girls ( or guys for the /.ers so persueded ) shower room , but you could n't see a blasted thing .
Any lighted object within the cloak could also , possibly , leak out giving away your concealment .
So even IF ( a big if ) the use of , say , an infrared camera , would allow you to see through the cloak , the use of it would give you away as the light from the screen/goggles could give you away .
Not to mention you would have to use some containment of the matrix supporting the nano-particles ( the fluid ) .
A magnetic field strong enough to suspend water ( i 'm not even sure if there is such ) would likely throw off the magnetic particles , so in turn you would need to have some sort of containment beyond the aqueous sphere .
Think fishbowl .
The container ( fishbowl ) in turn , would be visible being outside the sphere of invisibility .
So you would see this great 'empty ' spherical container just sitting there .
Which , logic denotes , means the rat got out , elliciting chaos and panic in said locker room.This is just one of the great physics problems that everyone has to come up with an 'answer ' to , and get their jollies just from doing that .
If you wan na be invisible in the girls shower room the best bet is still a very small drill and a pinhole camera , as any A/V geek knows all too well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually no, just the fact of being invisible.
In order to be invisible you have to refract all the light that would normally hit the object being invisible, meaning it would be in absolute dark.
You could be invisible in the girls (or guys for the /.ers so persueded) shower room, but you couldn't see a blasted thing.
Any lighted object within the cloak could also, possibly, leak out giving away your concealment.
So even IF  (a big if) the use of, say, an infrared camera, would allow you to see through the cloak, the use of it would give you away as the light from the screen/goggles could give you away.
Not to mention you would have to use some containment of the matrix supporting the nano-particles (the fluid).
A magnetic field strong enough to suspend water (i'm not even sure if there is such) would likely throw off the magnetic particles, so in turn you would need to have some sort of containment beyond the aqueous sphere.
Think fishbowl.
The container (fishbowl) in turn, would be visible being outside the sphere of invisibility.
So you would see this great 'empty' spherical container just sitting there.
Which, logic denotes, means the rat got out, elliciting chaos and panic in said locker room.This is just one of the great physics problems that everyone has to come up with an 'answer' to, and get their jollies just from doing that.
If you wanna be invisible in the girls shower room the best bet is still a very small drill and a pinhole camera, as any A/V geek knows all too well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30703348</id>
	<title>Re:What is so great about the invisibility cloak?</title>
	<author>aldld</author>
	<datestamp>1262961840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather be invisible in a chocolate factory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather be invisible in a chocolate factory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather be invisible in a chocolate factory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698114</id>
	<title>Only works from one perspective?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262980500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can understand how they could use these materials (theoretically anyway) to make Julian Beever-style illusions (see <a href="http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm" title="moillusions.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm</a> [moillusions.com]). But a real invisibility cloak has to detect the direction of every photon striking it and deliver that proton in the same direction out the exact opposite side of the cloak, doesn't it? Otherwise the effect is likely to be like a Beever painting, viewable from only one precise viewpoint.<br> <br>
-------<br> <br>
Theory blazes the trail, but it can't pave the road</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand how they could use these materials ( theoretically anyway ) to make Julian Beever-style illusions ( see http : //www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm [ moillusions.com ] ) .
But a real invisibility cloak has to detect the direction of every photon striking it and deliver that proton in the same direction out the exact opposite side of the cloak , does n't it ?
Otherwise the effect is likely to be like a Beever painting , viewable from only one precise viewpoint .
------- Theory blazes the trail , but it ca n't pave the road</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand how they could use these materials (theoretically anyway) to make Julian Beever-style illusions (see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm [moillusions.com]).
But a real invisibility cloak has to detect the direction of every photon striking it and deliver that proton in the same direction out the exact opposite side of the cloak, doesn't it?
Otherwise the effect is likely to be like a Beever painting, viewable from only one precise viewpoint.
------- 
Theory blazes the trail, but it can't pave the road</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698090</id>
	<title>Isn't this overkill?</title>
	<author>madbox</author>
	<datestamp>1262980380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, Aquaman is enough of a badass already, isn't he?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , Aquaman is enough of a badass already , is n't he ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, Aquaman is enough of a badass already, isn't he?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558</id>
	<title>It WOULD work IF (Do that and you'll go BLIND)</title>
	<author>mrnick</author>
	<datestamp>1262982480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would work "optically" if the Invisibility Cloak was made out of vegetable oil and you were made of Pyrex...</p><p>Vegetable oil and Pyrex has the same refractive index...</p><p>* put a small Pyrex jar into a larger one and then fill the smaller (inner) jar with vegetable oil and once it's full continue to fill the larger one with the overflow.  The smaller (inner) jar will become invisible, to the naked eye.</p><p>On a more serious note this seems to be a big problem with all invisibility cloaks, of non supernatural origin (calm down HP fans), and that is they are all based upon modifying materials refractive index and thus bending the light around the object you want to hide.</p><p>That all sounds good but if you could do this to hide an object; If that object were a person since light doesn't hit them, or their eyes, not only would they be invisible but they would also be blind. I think most people asking Santa for a invisibility cloak would like to actually see what's in the girls locker room right?</p><p>A perfect invisibility cloak would change the person wearing it, along with the cloak, to a refractive index of air but again, they would be perfectly blinded by the process.  In the case of RI = air then the light would go straight through them, included their eyes.  So you either bend the light or have it go through your eyes and either way your in the dark.</p><p>I guess you could hide everything but your pupils, but in my book you wouldn't be invisible then, floating eyeball freak!</p><p>LOL</p><p>Nick Powers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would work " optically " if the Invisibility Cloak was made out of vegetable oil and you were made of Pyrex...Vegetable oil and Pyrex has the same refractive index... * put a small Pyrex jar into a larger one and then fill the smaller ( inner ) jar with vegetable oil and once it 's full continue to fill the larger one with the overflow .
The smaller ( inner ) jar will become invisible , to the naked eye.On a more serious note this seems to be a big problem with all invisibility cloaks , of non supernatural origin ( calm down HP fans ) , and that is they are all based upon modifying materials refractive index and thus bending the light around the object you want to hide.That all sounds good but if you could do this to hide an object ; If that object were a person since light does n't hit them , or their eyes , not only would they be invisible but they would also be blind .
I think most people asking Santa for a invisibility cloak would like to actually see what 's in the girls locker room right ? A perfect invisibility cloak would change the person wearing it , along with the cloak , to a refractive index of air but again , they would be perfectly blinded by the process .
In the case of RI = air then the light would go straight through them , included their eyes .
So you either bend the light or have it go through your eyes and either way your in the dark.I guess you could hide everything but your pupils , but in my book you would n't be invisible then , floating eyeball freak ! LOLNick Powers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would work "optically" if the Invisibility Cloak was made out of vegetable oil and you were made of Pyrex...Vegetable oil and Pyrex has the same refractive index...* put a small Pyrex jar into a larger one and then fill the smaller (inner) jar with vegetable oil and once it's full continue to fill the larger one with the overflow.
The smaller (inner) jar will become invisible, to the naked eye.On a more serious note this seems to be a big problem with all invisibility cloaks, of non supernatural origin (calm down HP fans), and that is they are all based upon modifying materials refractive index and thus bending the light around the object you want to hide.That all sounds good but if you could do this to hide an object; If that object were a person since light doesn't hit them, or their eyes, not only would they be invisible but they would also be blind.
I think most people asking Santa for a invisibility cloak would like to actually see what's in the girls locker room right?A perfect invisibility cloak would change the person wearing it, along with the cloak, to a refractive index of air but again, they would be perfectly blinded by the process.
In the case of RI = air then the light would go straight through them, included their eyes.
So you either bend the light or have it go through your eyes and either way your in the dark.I guess you could hide everything but your pupils, but in my book you wouldn't be invisible then, floating eyeball freak!LOLNick Powers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697980</id>
	<title>Just in time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262979840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for the era of Chinese domination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for the era of Chinese domination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for the era of Chinese domination.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30706384</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this overkill?</title>
	<author>Whiteox</author>
	<datestamp>1263040140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm more concerned about invisible sharks with lasers on their heads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more concerned about invisible sharks with lasers on their heads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more concerned about invisible sharks with lasers on their heads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698216</id>
	<title>It's all about Ninja's, DUH!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262980920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They gave up on trying to make ninja's of their own (since they can only make cheap imitation knockoff's) so they just said forget the ninja part! Let's just make all of our forces invisible!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They gave up on trying to make ninja 's of their own ( since they can only make cheap imitation knockoff 's ) so they just said forget the ninja part !
Let 's just make all of our forces invisible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They gave up on trying to make ninja's of their own (since they can only make cheap imitation knockoff's) so they just said forget the ninja part!
Let's just make all of our forces invisible!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697956</id>
	<title>Countermeasure</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1262979780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can see through them with beer goggles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can see through them with beer goggles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can see through them with beer goggles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30699582</id>
	<title>"Makers of first invisibility cloak sued...</title>
	<author>Tybalt\_Capulet</author>
	<datestamp>1262943420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>by the joint companies Scholastic Books and Warner Brothers Films due to copyright infringement over the J.K. Rowling works Harry Potter."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by the joint companies Scholastic Books and Warner Brothers Films due to copyright infringement over the J.K. Rowling works Harry Potter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by the joint companies Scholastic Books and Warner Brothers Films due to copyright infringement over the J.K. Rowling works Harry Potter.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698868</id>
	<title>Re:negative index != invisibility</title>
	<author>Dalambertian</author>
	<datestamp>1262983800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally a use for transparent ferro-fluids <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me5Zzm2TXh4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me5Zzm2TXh4</a> [youtube.com] ? I wish TFA had a better description of how this is supposed to work, so I will have to resort to some serious hand-waving: It sounds like they are trying to make field-aligned wave guides. This would be similar to the way our magnetosphere moves plasma from the night side to the day side by moving around the Earth's magnetic field, a process that happens whenever the magnetic field of the solar wind points south. The analogy can only be taken so far, but for a plasma the magnetic field is all you need in order to confine the average particle motion to surfaces of equal field line length (assuming no external electric field). To do this for photons, you would need the conducting silver layer to confine the light to parallel surfaces of the magnetic field. If all this were true then I say this is f'n brilliant. If not, well it's plausible enough to make for good science fiction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally a use for transparent ferro-fluids http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = me5Zzm2TXh4 [ youtube.com ] ?
I wish TFA had a better description of how this is supposed to work , so I will have to resort to some serious hand-waving : It sounds like they are trying to make field-aligned wave guides .
This would be similar to the way our magnetosphere moves plasma from the night side to the day side by moving around the Earth 's magnetic field , a process that happens whenever the magnetic field of the solar wind points south .
The analogy can only be taken so far , but for a plasma the magnetic field is all you need in order to confine the average particle motion to surfaces of equal field line length ( assuming no external electric field ) .
To do this for photons , you would need the conducting silver layer to confine the light to parallel surfaces of the magnetic field .
If all this were true then I say this is f'n brilliant .
If not , well it 's plausible enough to make for good science fiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally a use for transparent ferro-fluids http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me5Zzm2TXh4 [youtube.com] ?
I wish TFA had a better description of how this is supposed to work, so I will have to resort to some serious hand-waving: It sounds like they are trying to make field-aligned wave guides.
This would be similar to the way our magnetosphere moves plasma from the night side to the day side by moving around the Earth's magnetic field, a process that happens whenever the magnetic field of the solar wind points south.
The analogy can only be taken so far, but for a plasma the magnetic field is all you need in order to confine the average particle motion to surfaces of equal field line length (assuming no external electric field).
To do this for photons, you would need the conducting silver layer to confine the light to parallel surfaces of the magnetic field.
If all this were true then I say this is f'n brilliant.
If not, well it's plausible enough to make for good science fiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698168</id>
	<title>negative index != invisibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262980800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All metamaterials are not created equal.   A metamaterial is an electromagnetic medium created by a composite of tiny (very subwavelength) constituent structures, put together in such away that longer wavelengths see an "average" material with properties very different from those of the constituents.  Usually, the goal is to use resonant effects in the microscopic constituents to make a material that is effectively very different from naturally occuring EM media.  But this can be done for many different purposes.

</p><p>A negative-refractive metamaterial is designed to have an effective "negative" index of refraction, which makes Snell's law (refraction) bend backwards, and can potentially be used for flat-lens near-field imaging, subwavelength imaging (again only in the near field), etcetera.  The main practical difficulty here is that the most interesting applications of negative-index materials are in the visible or infrared regime, but negative-index metamaterials rely on metallic constitutents and metals become very lossy at those wavelengths.

</p><p>Recent "invisibility" cloak proposals are based on the observation that there is a one-to-one mapping between transforming space to "curve around" the object being cloaked and keeping space the same and transforming the materials.  So, if you can make materials with certain properties, they could effectively cloak an object by causing all the light rays to curve around the object just as if space were curved.  Although this is mathematically quite beautiful, there are many practical obstacles to making this a reality.   The proposal is to make the required materials via metamaterials, but these are NOT negative-index metamaterials.  The required materials theoretically tend to require some singularities (points where the index blows up or vanishes), and trying to approximate that in practice inevitably involves losses which spoil the cloaking.  In general, the bigger the object to be cloaked compared to the wavelength, the smaller the losses have to be, and the narrower the bandwidth is going to be.  When you work out the numbers, you see that this is why all the experimental demonstrations of cloaking have only "cloaked" (reduced the scattering crosssection, but not to zero) objects that were a wavelength or two in diameter.  Cloaking macroscopic objects at visible wavelengths is a fantasy because the material requirements are insane.  The only remotely practical prospects seem to be cloaking objects on the ground (which makes things technically easier because the coordinate transformations are nonsingular) to long-wavelength radiation, e.g. cloaking something against radio waves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All metamaterials are not created equal .
A metamaterial is an electromagnetic medium created by a composite of tiny ( very subwavelength ) constituent structures , put together in such away that longer wavelengths see an " average " material with properties very different from those of the constituents .
Usually , the goal is to use resonant effects in the microscopic constituents to make a material that is effectively very different from naturally occuring EM media .
But this can be done for many different purposes .
A negative-refractive metamaterial is designed to have an effective " negative " index of refraction , which makes Snell 's law ( refraction ) bend backwards , and can potentially be used for flat-lens near-field imaging , subwavelength imaging ( again only in the near field ) , etcetera .
The main practical difficulty here is that the most interesting applications of negative-index materials are in the visible or infrared regime , but negative-index metamaterials rely on metallic constitutents and metals become very lossy at those wavelengths .
Recent " invisibility " cloak proposals are based on the observation that there is a one-to-one mapping between transforming space to " curve around " the object being cloaked and keeping space the same and transforming the materials .
So , if you can make materials with certain properties , they could effectively cloak an object by causing all the light rays to curve around the object just as if space were curved .
Although this is mathematically quite beautiful , there are many practical obstacles to making this a reality .
The proposal is to make the required materials via metamaterials , but these are NOT negative-index metamaterials .
The required materials theoretically tend to require some singularities ( points where the index blows up or vanishes ) , and trying to approximate that in practice inevitably involves losses which spoil the cloaking .
In general , the bigger the object to be cloaked compared to the wavelength , the smaller the losses have to be , and the narrower the bandwidth is going to be .
When you work out the numbers , you see that this is why all the experimental demonstrations of cloaking have only " cloaked " ( reduced the scattering crosssection , but not to zero ) objects that were a wavelength or two in diameter .
Cloaking macroscopic objects at visible wavelengths is a fantasy because the material requirements are insane .
The only remotely practical prospects seem to be cloaking objects on the ground ( which makes things technically easier because the coordinate transformations are nonsingular ) to long-wavelength radiation , e.g .
cloaking something against radio waves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All metamaterials are not created equal.
A metamaterial is an electromagnetic medium created by a composite of tiny (very subwavelength) constituent structures, put together in such away that longer wavelengths see an "average" material with properties very different from those of the constituents.
Usually, the goal is to use resonant effects in the microscopic constituents to make a material that is effectively very different from naturally occuring EM media.
But this can be done for many different purposes.
A negative-refractive metamaterial is designed to have an effective "negative" index of refraction, which makes Snell's law (refraction) bend backwards, and can potentially be used for flat-lens near-field imaging, subwavelength imaging (again only in the near field), etcetera.
The main practical difficulty here is that the most interesting applications of negative-index materials are in the visible or infrared regime, but negative-index metamaterials rely on metallic constitutents and metals become very lossy at those wavelengths.
Recent "invisibility" cloak proposals are based on the observation that there is a one-to-one mapping between transforming space to "curve around" the object being cloaked and keeping space the same and transforming the materials.
So, if you can make materials with certain properties, they could effectively cloak an object by causing all the light rays to curve around the object just as if space were curved.
Although this is mathematically quite beautiful, there are many practical obstacles to making this a reality.
The proposal is to make the required materials via metamaterials, but these are NOT negative-index metamaterials.
The required materials theoretically tend to require some singularities (points where the index blows up or vanishes), and trying to approximate that in practice inevitably involves losses which spoil the cloaking.
In general, the bigger the object to be cloaked compared to the wavelength, the smaller the losses have to be, and the narrower the bandwidth is going to be.
When you work out the numbers, you see that this is why all the experimental demonstrations of cloaking have only "cloaked" (reduced the scattering crosssection, but not to zero) objects that were a wavelength or two in diameter.
Cloaking macroscopic objects at visible wavelengths is a fantasy because the material requirements are insane.
The only remotely practical prospects seem to be cloaking objects on the ground (which makes things technically easier because the coordinate transformations are nonsingular) to long-wavelength radiation, e.g.
cloaking something against radio waves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30699166</id>
	<title>Re:It WOULD work IF (Do that and you'll go BLIND)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262941740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google up "pinhole camera" or "camera obscura" and you will see that we've had the technology to solve that part of the problem for close to a thousand years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google up " pinhole camera " or " camera obscura " and you will see that we 've had the technology to solve that part of the problem for close to a thousand years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google up "pinhole camera" or "camera obscura" and you will see that we've had the technology to solve that part of the problem for close to a thousand years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30699360</id>
	<title>Re:It WOULD work IF (Do that and you'll go BLIND)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262942520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, actually, couldn't you have sensors for things other than light underneath the cloak?</p><p>You could use it to, uh, smell the girl's locker room?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , actually , could n't you have sensors for things other than light underneath the cloak ? You could use it to , uh , smell the girl 's locker room ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, actually, couldn't you have sensors for things other than light underneath the cloak?You could use it to, uh, smell the girl's locker room?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698876</id>
	<title>Re:Only works from one perspective?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since it works by using a magnetic field to orient the particles, would you not merely have to change the orientation of the magnetic field for it to work for a certain direction? I mean it's far from perfect, but it's a lot more technologically flexible than we've had in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it works by using a magnetic field to orient the particles , would you not merely have to change the orientation of the magnetic field for it to work for a certain direction ?
I mean it 's far from perfect , but it 's a lot more technologically flexible than we 've had in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it works by using a magnetic field to orient the particles, would you not merely have to change the orientation of the magnetic field for it to work for a certain direction?
I mean it's far from perfect, but it's a lot more technologically flexible than we've had in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697938</id>
	<title>What is so great about the invisibility cloak?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262979720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand all these invisibility cloak stories on Slashdot over the years.  Is it rooted in some fantasy about being invisible in the girl's locker room?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand all these invisibility cloak stories on Slashdot over the years .
Is it rooted in some fantasy about being invisible in the girl 's locker room ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand all these invisibility cloak stories on Slashdot over the years.
Is it rooted in some fantasy about being invisible in the girl's locker room?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698442</id>
	<title>This is the correct url</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1262981940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very cool link, there was just a typo in your url. </p><p>The correct url is <a href="http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html" title="moillusions.com">http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html</a> [moillusions.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very cool link , there was just a typo in your url .
The correct url is http : //www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html [ moillusions.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very cool link, there was just a typo in your url.
The correct url is http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html [moillusions.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697888</id>
	<title>anonymous coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262979540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds very unlikely. We'll have magic wands way before invisibility cloaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds very unlikely .
We 'll have magic wands way before invisibility cloaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds very unlikely.
We'll have magic wands way before invisibility cloaks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698278</id>
	<title>Star Wars</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1262981160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Luke Raised his Macroculars to the sky and watched the Rebel ship be destroyed by the Imperial Star Destroyer"</p><p>To me this sounds suspicously like a Oil Filled Variable Focus Lens with higher magnification and image stabilization.</p><p>The big question though is this something new?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Luke Raised his Macroculars to the sky and watched the Rebel ship be destroyed by the Imperial Star Destroyer " To me this sounds suspicously like a Oil Filled Variable Focus Lens with higher magnification and image stabilization.The big question though is this something new ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Luke Raised his Macroculars to the sky and watched the Rebel ship be destroyed by the Imperial Star Destroyer"To me this sounds suspicously like a Oil Filled Variable Focus Lens with higher magnification and image stabilization.The big question though is this something new?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698900</id>
	<title>Forget cloaking and make a photonic computer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can configure the optical properties of this fluid on the fly, build an optical processor from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can configure the optical properties of this fluid on the fly , build an optical processor from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can configure the optical properties of this fluid on the fly, build an optical processor from it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698950</id>
	<title>Re:It WOULD work IF (Do that and you'll go BLIND)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262984100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An invisibility cloak, as in the sort used by harry potter, is not possible with a passive device. This is fairly obvious since you can't see light and yet be transparent to it at the same time.</p><p>However, there is no theoretical limit if the device is active. A simple example would be a flat panel display with a camera on the back. If you track the position of the observer, you can create a very convincing "invisibility" effect.</p><p>More interestingly, it may one day be possible to use active metamaterials to produce a similar effect. However, such a device would not be used for cloaking people, but rather for cloaking planes to Radar (for example).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An invisibility cloak , as in the sort used by harry potter , is not possible with a passive device .
This is fairly obvious since you ca n't see light and yet be transparent to it at the same time.However , there is no theoretical limit if the device is active .
A simple example would be a flat panel display with a camera on the back .
If you track the position of the observer , you can create a very convincing " invisibility " effect.More interestingly , it may one day be possible to use active metamaterials to produce a similar effect .
However , such a device would not be used for cloaking people , but rather for cloaking planes to Radar ( for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An invisibility cloak, as in the sort used by harry potter, is not possible with a passive device.
This is fairly obvious since you can't see light and yet be transparent to it at the same time.However, there is no theoretical limit if the device is active.
A simple example would be a flat panel display with a camera on the back.
If you track the position of the observer, you can create a very convincing "invisibility" effect.More interestingly, it may one day be possible to use active metamaterials to produce a similar effect.
However, such a device would not be used for cloaking people, but rather for cloaking planes to Radar (for example).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697878</id>
	<title>Let's get this over with...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262979540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[Insert lame Harry Potter joke here]</p><p>LuLz!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Insert lame Harry Potter joke here ] LuLz !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Insert lame Harry Potter joke here]LuLz!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30706244</id>
	<title>chinese stealth armour?</title>
	<author>Eunuchswear</author>
	<datestamp>1263038280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or just a stealth boy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or just a stealth boy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or just a stealth boy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30699392</id>
	<title>One thing I always wondered about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262942580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with an invisibilty clock, how do you see out. If your eyes are absorbing light then you would be able to be detected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with an invisibilty clock , how do you see out .
If your eyes are absorbing light then you would be able to be detected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with an invisibilty clock, how do you see out.
If your eyes are absorbing light then you would be able to be detected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30739912</id>
	<title>Vaporware?</title>
	<author>VeNoM0619</author>
	<datestamp>1263321960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So when does this turn into vaporware...?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So when does this turn into vaporware... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when does this turn into vaporware...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698874</id>
	<title>Re:Only works from one perspective?</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1262983800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are talking about a material that has a negative refractive index when placed under a magnetic field.  If it has a negative refractive index for all wavelengths of visible light, then it IS an invisibility cloak.  They aren't talking about transmitting light through the object, as you seem to think, but rather bending light AROUND it, which is possible and does work (at certain wavelengths).</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are talking about a material that has a negative refractive index when placed under a magnetic field .
If it has a negative refractive index for all wavelengths of visible light , then it IS an invisibility cloak .
They are n't talking about transmitting light through the object , as you seem to think , but rather bending light AROUND it , which is possible and does work ( at certain wavelengths ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are talking about a material that has a negative refractive index when placed under a magnetic field.
If it has a negative refractive index for all wavelengths of visible light, then it IS an invisibility cloak.
They aren't talking about transmitting light through the object, as you seem to think, but rather bending light AROUND it, which is possible and does work (at certain wavelengths).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30700836</id>
	<title>NO. please read up on the subject</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262948820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor\_Veselago<br>for a start<br>then<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Pendry<br>then find copies of their papers. the veselago paper is a scan cause its reasonably old. the pendry paper basically shows that if you take a slab of material with negative permeability and permittivity then you get a perfect lens.</p><p>later people showed that you could have external neg refractive index cloaks that would compensate for the optical influence of the object to be cloaked.</p><p>but start with vesalago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor \ _Veselagofor a startthenhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John \ _Pendrythen find copies of their papers .
the veselago paper is a scan cause its reasonably old .
the pendry paper basically shows that if you take a slab of material with negative permeability and permittivity then you get a perfect lens.later people showed that you could have external neg refractive index cloaks that would compensate for the optical influence of the object to be cloaked.but start with vesalago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor\_Veselagofor a startthenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Pendrythen find copies of their papers.
the veselago paper is a scan cause its reasonably old.
the pendry paper basically shows that if you take a slab of material with negative permeability and permittivity then you get a perfect lens.later people showed that you could have external neg refractive index cloaks that would compensate for the optical influence of the object to be cloaked.but start with vesalago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30700544</id>
	<title>Better Applications</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262947500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see the use in bothering to create such a device. I'm sure in military, magician and certain social circles this could have great value.</p><p>However, it seems like such technology... if possible... would be valuable in all kinds of truly useful application that could truly benefit society.</p><p>For example: wouldn't bending full spectrum light through a liquid medium controlled by an electric field be highly useful in the solar industry? I mean the cost of mirror alignment and replacement is a great cost factor in these systems.</p><p>Now I have no idea if this is really a useful application of this sort of technology... I'm just thinking aloud. But "Invisibilily Device"... come on, DON'T WASTE MY TIME. Even if it is possible, that would be a less important application for our sustained future. The very fact that this is in the "invisibility device" categories leads me to believe that such technology is not even close to been shown to be truly possible. IMO: This is fluff.</p><p>Alternatively, the researchers know that the only way to get their science research in the public eye is to attach it to some "wow" factor. Knowing full well that the true applications will likely be more useful (but less "wowful") in the real world.</p><p>I subscribe to the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the use in bothering to create such a device .
I 'm sure in military , magician and certain social circles this could have great value.However , it seems like such technology... if possible... would be valuable in all kinds of truly useful application that could truly benefit society.For example : would n't bending full spectrum light through a liquid medium controlled by an electric field be highly useful in the solar industry ?
I mean the cost of mirror alignment and replacement is a great cost factor in these systems.Now I have no idea if this is really a useful application of this sort of technology... I 'm just thinking aloud .
But " Invisibilily Device " ... come on , DO N'T WASTE MY TIME .
Even if it is possible , that would be a less important application for our sustained future .
The very fact that this is in the " invisibility device " categories leads me to believe that such technology is not even close to been shown to be truly possible .
IMO : This is fluff.Alternatively , the researchers know that the only way to get their science research in the public eye is to attach it to some " wow " factor .
Knowing full well that the true applications will likely be more useful ( but less " wowful " ) in the real world.I subscribe to the " I 'll believe it when I see it " camp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the use in bothering to create such a device.
I'm sure in military, magician and certain social circles this could have great value.However, it seems like such technology... if possible... would be valuable in all kinds of truly useful application that could truly benefit society.For example: wouldn't bending full spectrum light through a liquid medium controlled by an electric field be highly useful in the solar industry?
I mean the cost of mirror alignment and replacement is a great cost factor in these systems.Now I have no idea if this is really a useful application of this sort of technology... I'm just thinking aloud.
But "Invisibilily Device"... come on, DON'T WASTE MY TIME.
Even if it is possible, that would be a less important application for our sustained future.
The very fact that this is in the "invisibility device" categories leads me to believe that such technology is not even close to been shown to be truly possible.
IMO: This is fluff.Alternatively, the researchers know that the only way to get their science research in the public eye is to attach it to some "wow" factor.
Knowing full well that the true applications will likely be more useful (but less "wowful") in the real world.I subscribe to the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30701042</id>
	<title>lasers</title>
	<author>lq\_x\_pl</author>
	<datestamp>1262949840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone know how this material responds to lasers?  If it doesn't break, it might be a useful way of preventing resources on the ground from being "painted" by a laser (and subsequently bombed).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone know how this material responds to lasers ?
If it does n't break , it might be a useful way of preventing resources on the ground from being " painted " by a laser ( and subsequently bombed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone know how this material responds to lasers?
If it doesn't break, it might be a useful way of preventing resources on the ground from being "painted" by a laser (and subsequently bombed).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30701178</id>
	<title>Battle of New Orleans</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1262950380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ol' Hick'ry said "You kin take 'em by surprise,
<br>
If you just fire yer musket at the pupils of their eyes"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ol ' Hick'ry said " You kin take 'em by surprise , If you just fire yer musket at the pupils of their eyes "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ol' Hick'ry said "You kin take 'em by surprise,

If you just fire yer musket at the pupils of their eyes"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30702886</id>
	<title>Re:Only works from one perspective?</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1262958960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"(see <a href="http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm" title="moillusions.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm</a> [moillusions.com])."</p></div></blockquote><p>Wow.  Now that <b>is</b> invisible.  A picture that generates an HTTP 404 error when you look at it <b>is</b> cool, but of course there is always the danger that someone will just come along and add an "l" at the end of it.  (see <a href="http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html" title="moillusions.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html</a> [moillusions.com] , not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.htm ).<br> <br> <i>Disclaimer:</i>  I only clicked on it because I thought it said Jullie-Ann Beavers.  Needless to say I was rather disappointed after defeating the URL / invisibility mechanism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ( see http : //www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm [ moillusions.com ] ) . " Wow .
Now that is invisible .
A picture that generates an HTTP 404 error when you look at it is cool , but of course there is always the danger that someone will just come along and add an " l " at the end of it .
( see http : //www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html [ moillusions.com ] , not .htm ) .
Disclaimer : I only clicked on it because I thought it said Jullie-Ann Beavers .
Needless to say I was rather disappointed after defeating the URL / invisibility mechanism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"(see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm [moillusions.com])."Wow.
Now that is invisible.
A picture that generates an HTTP 404 error when you look at it is cool, but of course there is always the danger that someone will just come along and add an "l" at the end of it.
(see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html [moillusions.com] , not .htm ).
Disclaimer:  I only clicked on it because I thought it said Jullie-Ann Beavers.
Needless to say I was rather disappointed after defeating the URL / invisibility mechanism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30699040</id>
	<title>Re:What is so great about the invisibility cloak?</title>
	<author>McGiraf</author>
	<datestamp>1262984340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In need of a cloaking device, for that one last piece of the security puzzle (keeping the machine safe from physical hackers)"</p><p>No! No! that would be security by obscurity!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In need of a cloaking device , for that one last piece of the security puzzle ( keeping the machine safe from physical hackers ) " No !
No ! that would be security by obscurity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In need of a cloaking device, for that one last piece of the security puzzle (keeping the machine safe from physical hackers)"No!
No! that would be security by obscurity!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698084</id>
	<title>Re:Theoretical material with exotic optical effect</title>
	<author>homey1337</author>
	<datestamp>1262980320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>an SEP field is better anyway</htmltext>
<tokenext>an SEP field is better anyway</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an SEP field is better anyway</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697898</id>
	<title>I'm not seeing it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262979600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>eom</htmltext>
<tokenext>eom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eom</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697932</id>
	<title>Re:Let's get this over with...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262979720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was gonna go with the more obscure Way of the Shadows and say it sounds like they are making a ka'kari</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was gon na go with the more obscure Way of the Shadows and say it sounds like they are making a ka'kari</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was gonna go with the more obscure Way of the Shadows and say it sounds like they are making a ka'kari</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697922</id>
	<title>Future Commercial Success Guaranteed</title>
	<author>postmortem</author>
	<datestamp>1262979660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Much cheaper way to hide weight than liposuction/gastric bypass and available in Walmart..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Much cheaper way to hide weight than liposuction/gastric bypass and available in Walmart. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much cheaper way to hide weight than liposuction/gastric bypass and available in Walmart..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698178</id>
	<title>Ministry of Magic needs to know.</title>
	<author>itsenrique</author>
	<datestamp>1262980800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>someone get this news to harry potter and friends, unicorn tears are probably more rare than silver.</htmltext>
<tokenext>someone get this news to harry potter and friends , unicorn tears are probably more rare than silver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>someone get this news to harry potter and friends, unicorn tears are probably more rare than silver.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698304</id>
	<title>Space Cloak!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262981220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems like a great way to hide a satellite, if you can keep the temperature of the fluid regulated.  Of course, you can't hide solar panels, so you'll need an internal power source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like a great way to hide a satellite , if you can keep the temperature of the fluid regulated .
Of course , you ca n't hide solar panels , so you 'll need an internal power source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems like a great way to hide a satellite, if you can keep the temperature of the fluid regulated.
Of course, you can't hide solar panels, so you'll need an internal power source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698190</id>
	<title>Re:Only works from one perspective?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262980860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>you're missing the point.  this is more of a lens.  It redirects light around the object.  now, how fluidly it does this has yet to be seen, but any light that originates behind the object will be bent in a way that it never strikes the object.  I'm not sure how this would look in real life, but given a mathmatically perfect lens, the object would bend all light around it so that it comes out exactly on the other side. In that case, as far as our sense of sight is concerned, the object would not exist</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're missing the point .
this is more of a lens .
It redirects light around the object .
now , how fluidly it does this has yet to be seen , but any light that originates behind the object will be bent in a way that it never strikes the object .
I 'm not sure how this would look in real life , but given a mathmatically perfect lens , the object would bend all light around it so that it comes out exactly on the other side .
In that case , as far as our sense of sight is concerned , the object would not exist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're missing the point.
this is more of a lens.
It redirects light around the object.
now, how fluidly it does this has yet to be seen, but any light that originates behind the object will be bent in a way that it never strikes the object.
I'm not sure how this would look in real life, but given a mathmatically perfect lens, the object would bend all light around it so that it comes out exactly on the other side.
In that case, as far as our sense of sight is concerned, the object would not exist</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698274</id>
	<title>Re:Liquid Invisibility Cloak?</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1262981100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; No, no, that's the power of invincibility.  But can I get that without the tea or lime.  I don't need any of that girlie crap thinning out my liquor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    No , no , that 's the power of invincibility .
But can I get that without the tea or lime .
I do n't need any of that girlie crap thinning out my liquor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    No, no, that's the power of invincibility.
But can I get that without the tea or lime.
I don't need any of that girlie crap thinning out my liquor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30703452</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about Ninja's, DUH!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262962500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>weren't originally ninjas cheap labor (compared to, fielding an army of samurai (drawn from nobility))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>were n't originally ninjas cheap labor ( compared to , fielding an army of samurai ( drawn from nobility ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>weren't originally ninjas cheap labor (compared to, fielding an army of samurai (drawn from nobility))</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698288</id>
	<title>Invisibility?</title>
	<author>electricbern</author>
	<datestamp>1262981160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll believe it when I see it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll believe it when I see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll believe it when I see it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698946</id>
	<title>Re:It WOULD work IF (Do that and you'll go BLIND)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262984040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is exactly why a proper invisibility cloak must be computer controlled with millions of dots of resolution interspersed with millions of cameras.  The idea is that, like a chameleon, you change to look like your background.  With you inside, the cameras can also give you a view of your surroundings.</p><p>And yes, it would still give off a heat signature, but most people aren't walking around with night vision goggles all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is exactly why a proper invisibility cloak must be computer controlled with millions of dots of resolution interspersed with millions of cameras .
The idea is that , like a chameleon , you change to look like your background .
With you inside , the cameras can also give you a view of your surroundings.And yes , it would still give off a heat signature , but most people are n't walking around with night vision goggles all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is exactly why a proper invisibility cloak must be computer controlled with millions of dots of resolution interspersed with millions of cameras.
The idea is that, like a chameleon, you change to look like your background.
With you inside, the cameras can also give you a view of your surroundings.And yes, it would still give off a heat signature, but most people aren't walking around with night vision goggles all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30699040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30703452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30706384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30699166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30703348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30702886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30699360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30700836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30701178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_08_1643240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30703452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30700836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30699166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30699360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30701178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30702886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30699040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30703348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30706384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_08_1643240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30697868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_08_1643240.30698274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
