<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_27_2318247</id>
	<title>Lithium Air Batteries Get Boost From IBM and DOE</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1264592700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes <i>"The Department of Energy and IBM are serious about <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/56498">developing controversial lithium air batteries</a> capable of powering a car for 500 miles on a single charge &ndash; a huge increase over current plug-in batteries that have a range of about 40 to 100 miles, the DOE said. The agency said 24 million hours of supercomputing time out of a total of 1.6 billion available hours at Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories will be used by IBM and a team of researchers from those labs and Vanderbilt University to design new materials required for a lithium air battery."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " The Department of Energy and IBM are serious about developing controversial lithium air batteries capable of powering a car for 500 miles on a single charge    a huge increase over current plug-in batteries that have a range of about 40 to 100 miles , the DOE said .
The agency said 24 million hours of supercomputing time out of a total of 1.6 billion available hours at Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories will be used by IBM and a team of researchers from those labs and Vanderbilt University to design new materials required for a lithium air battery .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "The Department of Energy and IBM are serious about developing controversial lithium air batteries capable of powering a car for 500 miles on a single charge – a huge increase over current plug-in batteries that have a range of about 40 to 100 miles, the DOE said.
The agency said 24 million hours of supercomputing time out of a total of 1.6 billion available hours at Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories will be used by IBM and a team of researchers from those labs and Vanderbilt University to design new materials required for a lithium air battery.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30935254</id>
	<title>Re:DOE is serious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems an odd way to measure supercomputing time. I would think using all of the processors for 1 hour would be 1 hour of supercomputing time...</p><p>In any case, I wonder what the power consumption and cost is for those 12 million hours of suportcomputing time?</p><p>Mike</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems an odd way to measure supercomputing time .
I would think using all of the processors for 1 hour would be 1 hour of supercomputing time...In any case , I wonder what the power consumption and cost is for those 12 million hours of suportcomputing time ? Mike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems an odd way to measure supercomputing time.
I would think using all of the processors for 1 hour would be 1 hour of supercomputing time...In any case, I wonder what the power consumption and cost is for those 12 million hours of suportcomputing time?Mike</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931488</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1264679460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time you post, I think "Man, Slashdot sure is better with Rei around". Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time you post , I think " Man , Slashdot sure is better with Rei around " .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time you post, I think "Man, Slashdot sure is better with Rei around".
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30947176</id>
	<title>Re:Don't recharge; swap!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you could just add a 20-30 kW biodiesel generator and be done with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could just add a 20-30 kW biodiesel generator and be done with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could just add a 20-30 kW biodiesel generator and be done with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928532</id>
	<title>Re:Mining in outerspace?</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1264603260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope.</p><p>Lithium is plentiful, you can mine it from seawater indefinitely for about $60 per kg. It's just that some countries can supply lithium at smaller prices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope.Lithium is plentiful , you can mine it from seawater indefinitely for about $ 60 per kg .
It 's just that some countries can supply lithium at smaller prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.Lithium is plentiful, you can mine it from seawater indefinitely for about $60 per kg.
It's just that some countries can supply lithium at smaller prices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30930092</id>
	<title>Lithium Shortage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, we will replace an oil shortage with a lithium shortage.</p><p><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/02/03/peak-lithium-will-supply-fears-drive-alternative-batteries/" title="wsj.com">Some experts believe the huge increase in electric cars will actually strain the world&rsquo;s lithium supplies in a few years; as with peak oil</a> [wsj.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , we will replace an oil shortage with a lithium shortage.Some experts believe the huge increase in electric cars will actually strain the world    s lithium supplies in a few years ; as with peak oil [ wsj.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, we will replace an oil shortage with a lithium shortage.Some experts believe the huge increase in electric cars will actually strain the world’s lithium supplies in a few years; as with peak oil [wsj.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928074</id>
	<title>Re:Patents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264600020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, because the DOE is bankrolling their computer time, does that mean the results will not be patent-encumbered?<br>Or are we in for more <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent\_encumbrance\_of\_large\_automotive\_NiMH\_batteries" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">NiMH</a> [wikipedia.org] crap?</p></div><p>Two words: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs.\_Frisby\_and\_the\_Rats\_of\_NIMH" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Rat Powered!</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , because the DOE is bankrolling their computer time , does that mean the results will not be patent-encumbered ? Or are we in for more NiMH [ wikipedia.org ] crap ? Two words : Rat Powered !
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, because the DOE is bankrolling their computer time, does that mean the results will not be patent-encumbered?Or are we in for more NiMH [wikipedia.org] crap?Two words: Rat Powered!
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927658</id>
	<title>absolutely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264597500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely a game changer.  In fact, I got a real charge out of reading about them.  The current methods are terminal.  I was much more depressed before reading about these things.  I think the technology really has potential.  Hopefully they will cell, but they might have to amp up the advertising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely a game changer .
In fact , I got a real charge out of reading about them .
The current methods are terminal .
I was much more depressed before reading about these things .
I think the technology really has potential .
Hopefully they will cell , but they might have to amp up the advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely a game changer.
In fact, I got a real charge out of reading about them.
The current methods are terminal.
I was much more depressed before reading about these things.
I think the technology really has potential.
Hopefully they will cell, but they might have to amp up the advertising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928982</id>
	<title>Re:Recharge time?</title>
	<author>scdeimos</author>
	<datestamp>1264606680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all depends on the discharge/charge ratings for the cells. We regularly punish Li cells in hotliner electric gliders.</p><p>For example, a 1,000mAH Li-Ion cell with a 5C charge rating can be safely charged at 5,000mA from near flat in 10 to 12 minutes. The charge ratings tend to go down as cell sizes increase, though, due to ventilation issues - you just can't dissipate the heat from the battery packs quickly enough unless you involve forced-flow systems, and if it gets too hot you'll get a runaway situation and BOOM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all depends on the discharge/charge ratings for the cells .
We regularly punish Li cells in hotliner electric gliders.For example , a 1,000mAH Li-Ion cell with a 5C charge rating can be safely charged at 5,000mA from near flat in 10 to 12 minutes .
The charge ratings tend to go down as cell sizes increase , though , due to ventilation issues - you just ca n't dissipate the heat from the battery packs quickly enough unless you involve forced-flow systems , and if it gets too hot you 'll get a runaway situation and BOOM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all depends on the discharge/charge ratings for the cells.
We regularly punish Li cells in hotliner electric gliders.For example, a 1,000mAH Li-Ion cell with a 5C charge rating can be safely charged at 5,000mA from near flat in 10 to 12 minutes.
The charge ratings tend to go down as cell sizes increase, though, due to ventilation issues - you just can't dissipate the heat from the battery packs quickly enough unless you involve forced-flow systems, and if it gets too hot you'll get a runaway situation and BOOM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928050</id>
	<title>Recharge time and price bigger issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264599960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tbh with the Tesla breaking 500km the main obstacle for Electric Vehicles is no longer storage capacity of the batteries but rather the recharge time and battery price. LiFeP batteries have short recharge times ( 5 minuets or so ) and are starting to come down in price, so the big issue right now is designing an electric interface that can safely deliver the 200kW or so that would be needed to charge the a Tesla-equivalent 50kWh battery pack in less than 15 minutes. The standard proposed in Europe supports up to 43kW so there's some way to go still, but theoretically if you just developed the EU's proposal to support 100kW then using 2 cables would get you down to a 15min charge time.</p><p>It's a bit of an engineering problem to make such an interface safe for the average commuter to use, but it seems to me it is now fairly clear that batteries will be future energy carrier for personal cars. Hydrogen no longer has any advantages over batteries since it is has a low energy efficiency and even worse refueling problems than electrics, not to mention the infrastructure challenges. There is still no good way to produce biofuel at the scales required, and even if you could you would have to set up a new infrastructure from scratch, and they would likely still result in more pollution than the batteries. With fast charging batteries on the market now flywheels have also lost their advantage of being able to "charge" very rapidly and their low energy density and high cost makes them unlikely.</p><p>Basically eventually battery price will come down enough, and the Oil price will rise high enough, that electric vehicles will be cheaper than petrol. It's now just a matter of time, maybe just a few decades, before the majority of cars produced will be electric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tbh with the Tesla breaking 500km the main obstacle for Electric Vehicles is no longer storage capacity of the batteries but rather the recharge time and battery price .
LiFeP batteries have short recharge times ( 5 minuets or so ) and are starting to come down in price , so the big issue right now is designing an electric interface that can safely deliver the 200kW or so that would be needed to charge the a Tesla-equivalent 50kWh battery pack in less than 15 minutes .
The standard proposed in Europe supports up to 43kW so there 's some way to go still , but theoretically if you just developed the EU 's proposal to support 100kW then using 2 cables would get you down to a 15min charge time.It 's a bit of an engineering problem to make such an interface safe for the average commuter to use , but it seems to me it is now fairly clear that batteries will be future energy carrier for personal cars .
Hydrogen no longer has any advantages over batteries since it is has a low energy efficiency and even worse refueling problems than electrics , not to mention the infrastructure challenges .
There is still no good way to produce biofuel at the scales required , and even if you could you would have to set up a new infrastructure from scratch , and they would likely still result in more pollution than the batteries .
With fast charging batteries on the market now flywheels have also lost their advantage of being able to " charge " very rapidly and their low energy density and high cost makes them unlikely.Basically eventually battery price will come down enough , and the Oil price will rise high enough , that electric vehicles will be cheaper than petrol .
It 's now just a matter of time , maybe just a few decades , before the majority of cars produced will be electric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tbh with the Tesla breaking 500km the main obstacle for Electric Vehicles is no longer storage capacity of the batteries but rather the recharge time and battery price.
LiFeP batteries have short recharge times ( 5 minuets or so ) and are starting to come down in price, so the big issue right now is designing an electric interface that can safely deliver the 200kW or so that would be needed to charge the a Tesla-equivalent 50kWh battery pack in less than 15 minutes.
The standard proposed in Europe supports up to 43kW so there's some way to go still, but theoretically if you just developed the EU's proposal to support 100kW then using 2 cables would get you down to a 15min charge time.It's a bit of an engineering problem to make such an interface safe for the average commuter to use, but it seems to me it is now fairly clear that batteries will be future energy carrier for personal cars.
Hydrogen no longer has any advantages over batteries since it is has a low energy efficiency and even worse refueling problems than electrics, not to mention the infrastructure challenges.
There is still no good way to produce biofuel at the scales required, and even if you could you would have to set up a new infrastructure from scratch, and they would likely still result in more pollution than the batteries.
With fast charging batteries on the market now flywheels have also lost their advantage of being able to "charge" very rapidly and their low energy density and high cost makes them unlikely.Basically eventually battery price will come down enough, and the Oil price will rise high enough, that electric vehicles will be cheaper than petrol.
It's now just a matter of time, maybe just a few decades, before the majority of cars produced will be electric.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929712</id>
	<title>Lithium availability?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264614540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard people raise the concern that we're just going to swap running out of oil for running out of lithium. Can anyone knowledgeable comment on this?</p><p>In particular, what is the feasibility of extracting lithium from sea water?</p><p>Here's a little background info from Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Production" title="wikipedia.org">Lithium production</a> [wikipedia.org],<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea\_Salt#Composition" title="wikipedia.org">Sea salt composition</a> [wikipedia.org] (which looks very pessimistic for sea water extraction.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard people raise the concern that we 're just going to swap running out of oil for running out of lithium .
Can anyone knowledgeable comment on this ? In particular , what is the feasibility of extracting lithium from sea water ? Here 's a little background info from Wikipedia : Lithium production [ wikipedia.org ] ,Sea salt composition [ wikipedia.org ] ( which looks very pessimistic for sea water extraction .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard people raise the concern that we're just going to swap running out of oil for running out of lithium.
Can anyone knowledgeable comment on this?In particular, what is the feasibility of extracting lithium from sea water?Here's a little background info from Wikipedia: Lithium production [wikipedia.org],Sea salt composition [wikipedia.org] (which looks very pessimistic for sea water extraction.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929064</id>
	<title>Re:Gasoline's energy density is a fundamental limi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264607760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good points!</p><p>However, to be fair, you cannot just compare the weight and cost of a gas tank vs. a battery, but, ultimately, you have to compare (gas tank + Motor + radiator + exhaust system + drive train + brakes) vs. (Batteries + one electric motor per wheel).</p><p>Plus, electric motors and batteries are almost ideally scalable, meaning a 20kW version will not cost and weigh much more than a fifth of a 100kW version.</p><p>Therefore, affordable electric lightweight vehicles for personal transportation at moderate highway speeds (100km/h or app. 65mph) seem doable to me at the same cost as a midsized sedan today, but much cheaper to operate. Imagine no Oil changes, no brake jobs, no timing belt replacements.</p><p>You probably won`t be able to use them to haul a trailer with two cows to the county fair, but they will be perfectly adequate to drive to the organic farm 25 miles out of the city to buy two quarts of milk and a dozen apples. Incidentally, that is what most SUVs were used for before they were traded in for a Prius last year.</p><p>If, after economies of scale have been at work for a couple of years, we get a battery with 10kWh of useable capacity and 4x5kW peak electric wheel motors for $10.000, then that would translate into a Smart-Car sized vehicle with &gt;100km/65m range with fuel costs of app. 3 Cents per mile vs. fuel costs of 12 cents per mile for a 25mpg at $3/gallon "cheap" car like a Dodge Neon sold for $10K until a few years ago.</p><p>If you drive both for slightly over 100k miles, you break even, especially as the much lower maintenance on the electric car would much more than offset the interest for the initially higher investment.</p><p>This is good news for people with a home in suburbia. If gas prices continue to rise, they will still be able to afford a car to commute, albeit they probably wouldn't want to drive to disneyland with the family in it.</p><p>So I pray to the George Clooneys of this world: Go buy Teslas and a couple of Volts for the kids, so the kinks get worked out quickly, and I can afford a then reliable and cheap Volt V5.0 in 10 years time!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good points ! However , to be fair , you can not just compare the weight and cost of a gas tank vs. a battery , but , ultimately , you have to compare ( gas tank + Motor + radiator + exhaust system + drive train + brakes ) vs. ( Batteries + one electric motor per wheel ) .Plus , electric motors and batteries are almost ideally scalable , meaning a 20kW version will not cost and weigh much more than a fifth of a 100kW version.Therefore , affordable electric lightweight vehicles for personal transportation at moderate highway speeds ( 100km/h or app .
65mph ) seem doable to me at the same cost as a midsized sedan today , but much cheaper to operate .
Imagine no Oil changes , no brake jobs , no timing belt replacements.You probably won ` t be able to use them to haul a trailer with two cows to the county fair , but they will be perfectly adequate to drive to the organic farm 25 miles out of the city to buy two quarts of milk and a dozen apples .
Incidentally , that is what most SUVs were used for before they were traded in for a Prius last year.If , after economies of scale have been at work for a couple of years , we get a battery with 10kWh of useable capacity and 4x5kW peak electric wheel motors for $ 10.000 , then that would translate into a Smart-Car sized vehicle with &gt; 100km/65m range with fuel costs of app .
3 Cents per mile vs. fuel costs of 12 cents per mile for a 25mpg at $ 3/gallon " cheap " car like a Dodge Neon sold for $ 10K until a few years ago.If you drive both for slightly over 100k miles , you break even , especially as the much lower maintenance on the electric car would much more than offset the interest for the initially higher investment.This is good news for people with a home in suburbia .
If gas prices continue to rise , they will still be able to afford a car to commute , albeit they probably would n't want to drive to disneyland with the family in it.So I pray to the George Clooneys of this world : Go buy Teslas and a couple of Volts for the kids , so the kinks get worked out quickly , and I can afford a then reliable and cheap Volt V5.0 in 10 years time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good points!However, to be fair, you cannot just compare the weight and cost of a gas tank vs. a battery, but, ultimately, you have to compare (gas tank + Motor + radiator + exhaust system + drive train + brakes) vs. (Batteries + one electric motor per wheel).Plus, electric motors and batteries are almost ideally scalable, meaning a 20kW version will not cost and weigh much more than a fifth of a 100kW version.Therefore, affordable electric lightweight vehicles for personal transportation at moderate highway speeds (100km/h or app.
65mph) seem doable to me at the same cost as a midsized sedan today, but much cheaper to operate.
Imagine no Oil changes, no brake jobs, no timing belt replacements.You probably won`t be able to use them to haul a trailer with two cows to the county fair, but they will be perfectly adequate to drive to the organic farm 25 miles out of the city to buy two quarts of milk and a dozen apples.
Incidentally, that is what most SUVs were used for before they were traded in for a Prius last year.If, after economies of scale have been at work for a couple of years, we get a battery with 10kWh of useable capacity and 4x5kW peak electric wheel motors for $10.000, then that would translate into a Smart-Car sized vehicle with &gt;100km/65m range with fuel costs of app.
3 Cents per mile vs. fuel costs of 12 cents per mile for a 25mpg at $3/gallon "cheap" car like a Dodge Neon sold for $10K until a few years ago.If you drive both for slightly over 100k miles, you break even, especially as the much lower maintenance on the electric car would much more than offset the interest for the initially higher investment.This is good news for people with a home in suburbia.
If gas prices continue to rise, they will still be able to afford a car to commute, albeit they probably wouldn't want to drive to disneyland with the family in it.So I pray to the George Clooneys of this world: Go buy Teslas and a couple of Volts for the kids, so the kinks get worked out quickly, and I can afford a then reliable and cheap Volt V5.0 in 10 years time!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928528</id>
	<title>Re:Gasoline's energy density is a fundamental limi</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1264603200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you don't need heavy gas engine in electric car...</p><p>Also, there are denser energy storage mediums than gasoline. Some are practical (diesel), some are not (lithium hydride + fluorine).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you do n't need heavy gas engine in electric car...Also , there are denser energy storage mediums than gasoline .
Some are practical ( diesel ) , some are not ( lithium hydride + fluorine ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you don't need heavy gas engine in electric car...Also, there are denser energy storage mediums than gasoline.
Some are practical (diesel), some are not (lithium hydride + fluorine).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30930152</id>
	<title>Re:Gasoline's energy density is a fundamental limi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>beryllium=Baaad, very baaaad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>beryllium = Baaad , very baaaad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>beryllium=Baaad, very baaaad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30930948</id>
	<title>Metals as an energy carrier and storage medium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264673340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Metal air batteries - like Lithium, but also Aluminium and Magnesium, for example - offer a proven technology for storing energy. Many renewables are intermittent, or located in places without energy demand. Take a wind turbine. You can connect it to the grid with a (usually verty expensive) line and manage its variable productivity, or you can hitch it to a bucket of electrolyte, and occasionally harvest a billet of metal.. Ocean thermal is one of the few renewable technologies that is both reliable and ona scale that matches real world energy demand. However, hot water over a thermocline is chiefly found near the equator, where energy demand is, on the whole, low. So smelt to metals in situ, move these (safely, in a non-toxic form) to the industrial centres, "burn" it to oxide and generate electricity. Now collect the oxide, send it back and re-smelt it. This is a carbon-free technology (Aluminium is approaching zero carbon with direct reduction crucibles) and it is safe, proven and ready for the oven.

BTW, if Lithium takes off, buy shares in Bolivia, which has a huge fraction of proven reserves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Metal air batteries - like Lithium , but also Aluminium and Magnesium , for example - offer a proven technology for storing energy .
Many renewables are intermittent , or located in places without energy demand .
Take a wind turbine .
You can connect it to the grid with a ( usually verty expensive ) line and manage its variable productivity , or you can hitch it to a bucket of electrolyte , and occasionally harvest a billet of metal.. Ocean thermal is one of the few renewable technologies that is both reliable and ona scale that matches real world energy demand .
However , hot water over a thermocline is chiefly found near the equator , where energy demand is , on the whole , low .
So smelt to metals in situ , move these ( safely , in a non-toxic form ) to the industrial centres , " burn " it to oxide and generate electricity .
Now collect the oxide , send it back and re-smelt it .
This is a carbon-free technology ( Aluminium is approaching zero carbon with direct reduction crucibles ) and it is safe , proven and ready for the oven .
BTW , if Lithium takes off , buy shares in Bolivia , which has a huge fraction of proven reserves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Metal air batteries - like Lithium, but also Aluminium and Magnesium, for example - offer a proven technology for storing energy.
Many renewables are intermittent, or located in places without energy demand.
Take a wind turbine.
You can connect it to the grid with a (usually verty expensive) line and manage its variable productivity, or you can hitch it to a bucket of electrolyte, and occasionally harvest a billet of metal.. Ocean thermal is one of the few renewable technologies that is both reliable and ona scale that matches real world energy demand.
However, hot water over a thermocline is chiefly found near the equator, where energy demand is, on the whole, low.
So smelt to metals in situ, move these (safely, in a non-toxic form) to the industrial centres, "burn" it to oxide and generate electricity.
Now collect the oxide, send it back and re-smelt it.
This is a carbon-free technology (Aluminium is approaching zero carbon with direct reduction crucibles) and it is safe, proven and ready for the oven.
BTW, if Lithium takes off, buy shares in Bolivia, which has a huge fraction of proven reserves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927746</id>
	<title>A new air pollution source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264597980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p>"Because they use air that's pulled into the battery as needed, rather than store a second reactant inside the cell, lithium-air batteries could have an energy density of more than 5,000 watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg)."</p><p>Anyone get the feeling that airborne lithium will soon be a pollution concern?  At least with all that lithium around, depression should be a thing of the past!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " Because they use air that 's pulled into the battery as needed , rather than store a second reactant inside the cell , lithium-air batteries could have an energy density of more than 5,000 watt-hours per kilogram ( Wh/kg ) .
" Anyone get the feeling that airborne lithium will soon be a pollution concern ?
At least with all that lithium around , depression should be a thing of the past !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:"Because they use air that's pulled into the battery as needed, rather than store a second reactant inside the cell, lithium-air batteries could have an energy density of more than 5,000 watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg).
"Anyone get the feeling that airborne lithium will soon be a pollution concern?
At least with all that lithium around, depression should be a thing of the past!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927692</id>
	<title>Overstated</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1264597740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>capable of powering a car for 500 miles on a single charge - a huge increase over current plug-in batteries that have a range of about 40 to 100 miles</p></div></blockquote><p>Current plug-in vehicles?  Like, what a Chevy Volt or a hacked Prius?  Nonsense.  Try a Tesla Roadster, with a single charge range of 250 miles.  Lithium-air might double the range then.  But a factor of 5?  No.
</p><p>
I do have one question though.  How are lithium-ion batteries affected by increasing cell size?  The Tesla Roadster currently uses a ridiculous number of very small cells in its pack, in a move that looks dictated by ridiculous patent licensing terms limiting cell sizes to those suitable for laptops in an effort to prevent the existence of something like the Roadster.  That's what it looks like.  But is there a technical reason to limit cell size?  There is surprisingly little information available about how the performance of lithium cells change as they get physically larger (or smaller).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>capable of powering a car for 500 miles on a single charge - a huge increase over current plug-in batteries that have a range of about 40 to 100 milesCurrent plug-in vehicles ?
Like , what a Chevy Volt or a hacked Prius ?
Nonsense. Try a Tesla Roadster , with a single charge range of 250 miles .
Lithium-air might double the range then .
But a factor of 5 ?
No . I do have one question though .
How are lithium-ion batteries affected by increasing cell size ?
The Tesla Roadster currently uses a ridiculous number of very small cells in its pack , in a move that looks dictated by ridiculous patent licensing terms limiting cell sizes to those suitable for laptops in an effort to prevent the existence of something like the Roadster .
That 's what it looks like .
But is there a technical reason to limit cell size ?
There is surprisingly little information available about how the performance of lithium cells change as they get physically larger ( or smaller ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>capable of powering a car for 500 miles on a single charge - a huge increase over current plug-in batteries that have a range of about 40 to 100 milesCurrent plug-in vehicles?
Like, what a Chevy Volt or a hacked Prius?
Nonsense.  Try a Tesla Roadster, with a single charge range of 250 miles.
Lithium-air might double the range then.
But a factor of 5?
No.

I do have one question though.
How are lithium-ion batteries affected by increasing cell size?
The Tesla Roadster currently uses a ridiculous number of very small cells in its pack, in a move that looks dictated by ridiculous patent licensing terms limiting cell sizes to those suitable for laptops in an effort to prevent the existence of something like the Roadster.
That's what it looks like.
But is there a technical reason to limit cell size?
There is surprisingly little information available about how the performance of lithium cells change as they get physically larger (or smaller).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928176</id>
	<title>500 miles?</title>
	<author>heptapod</author>
	<datestamp>1264600560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I can go 500 miles but what kind of speeds will I be experiencing? There's a difference between doing 40mph and 80mph through the Nevada desert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I can go 500 miles but what kind of speeds will I be experiencing ?
There 's a difference between doing 40mph and 80mph through the Nevada desert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I can go 500 miles but what kind of speeds will I be experiencing?
There's a difference between doing 40mph and 80mph through the Nevada desert.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30932900</id>
	<title>As anyone tried fuel-cell using fuel?</title>
	<author>werfu</author>
	<datestamp>1264692660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As anyone tried fuel-cell using fuel? That may be pointless but...</htmltext>
<tokenext>As anyone tried fuel-cell using fuel ?
That may be pointless but.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As anyone tried fuel-cell using fuel?
That may be pointless but...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928612</id>
	<title>Re:Gasoline's energy density is a fundamental limi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264603980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However engines are only about 30\% efficient, and very heavy.  In contrast, electric motors are light, so you basically swap the weight of the engine and everything needed to keep an ICE running (coolant systems, alternator, etc.) with the weight of the battery.  The battery has to mass less than the *engine*, not the fuel, since the fuel tank and the electric motors are pretty close in terms of mass, for cars to have the same mass they have today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However engines are only about 30 \ % efficient , and very heavy .
In contrast , electric motors are light , so you basically swap the weight of the engine and everything needed to keep an ICE running ( coolant systems , alternator , etc .
) with the weight of the battery .
The battery has to mass less than the * engine * , not the fuel , since the fuel tank and the electric motors are pretty close in terms of mass , for cars to have the same mass they have today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However engines are only about 30\% efficient, and very heavy.
In contrast, electric motors are light, so you basically swap the weight of the engine and everything needed to keep an ICE running (coolant systems, alternator, etc.
) with the weight of the battery.
The battery has to mass less than the *engine*, not the fuel, since the fuel tank and the electric motors are pretty close in terms of mass, for cars to have the same mass they have today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30933150</id>
	<title>battery-free electric vehicles for the masses</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1264693860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they're called subways, electric trains, and now there is personal rapid transit. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal\_rapid\_transit" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal\_rapid\_transit</a> [wikipedia.org].  just slap a 10\% monthly tax increase on emissions engines and fuels, and suddenly every driver, company, and person will be interested in electric everything, enough people to make anything work overnight.  mechanics will install electric engines, overhead road power will magically be installed, the limited power of current batteries will suddenly be good-enough, trains and rails will be built, people will move closer to their jobs, buildings will be build closer to work places, nuclear power and other power generators will be built, urban population densities will increase, bicycles and skateboards will get used, i don't see any adapting problems. "the economy will suffer" is only if you're scared of change or in the pocket of oil companies, everyone else get to work and will be fine.  combustion engines will become as important as vinyl records, and that's it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're called subways , electric trains , and now there is personal rapid transit .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal \ _rapid \ _transit [ wikipedia.org ] .
just slap a 10 \ % monthly tax increase on emissions engines and fuels , and suddenly every driver , company , and person will be interested in electric everything , enough people to make anything work overnight .
mechanics will install electric engines , overhead road power will magically be installed , the limited power of current batteries will suddenly be good-enough , trains and rails will be built , people will move closer to their jobs , buildings will be build closer to work places , nuclear power and other power generators will be built , urban population densities will increase , bicycles and skateboards will get used , i do n't see any adapting problems .
" the economy will suffer " is only if you 're scared of change or in the pocket of oil companies , everyone else get to work and will be fine .
combustion engines will become as important as vinyl records , and that 's it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're called subways, electric trains, and now there is personal rapid transit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal\_rapid\_transit [wikipedia.org].
just slap a 10\% monthly tax increase on emissions engines and fuels, and suddenly every driver, company, and person will be interested in electric everything, enough people to make anything work overnight.
mechanics will install electric engines, overhead road power will magically be installed, the limited power of current batteries will suddenly be good-enough, trains and rails will be built, people will move closer to their jobs, buildings will be build closer to work places, nuclear power and other power generators will be built, urban population densities will increase, bicycles and skateboards will get used, i don't see any adapting problems.
"the economy will suffer" is only if you're scared of change or in the pocket of oil companies, everyone else get to work and will be fine.
combustion engines will become as important as vinyl records, and that's it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30933500</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264695540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know what? Thank you.  Posts like this are a huge part of what makes Slashdot great.  I love that I get to read the responses of intellectuals and subject matter experts who take the time to contribute their relevant knowledge and perspective to a discussion/news item like this one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what ?
Thank you .
Posts like this are a huge part of what makes Slashdot great .
I love that I get to read the responses of intellectuals and subject matter experts who take the time to contribute their relevant knowledge and perspective to a discussion/news item like this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what?
Thank you.
Posts like this are a huge part of what makes Slashdot great.
I love that I get to read the responses of intellectuals and subject matter experts who take the time to contribute their relevant knowledge and perspective to a discussion/news item like this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927560</id>
	<title>looks like another pinto car</title>
	<author>tazanator</author>
	<datestamp>1264596960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They use highly flammable metals to do this so we will have another round of explosive cars out on the highways, and being metals they will require some thought into the use of water to put the flames out at accidents.  Would be great once the bugs and dangers are worked out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They use highly flammable metals to do this so we will have another round of explosive cars out on the highways , and being metals they will require some thought into the use of water to put the flames out at accidents .
Would be great once the bugs and dangers are worked out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They use highly flammable metals to do this so we will have another round of explosive cars out on the highways, and being metals they will require some thought into the use of water to put the flames out at accidents.
Would be great once the bugs and dangers are worked out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928362</id>
	<title>Mining in outerspace?</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1264601760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last I heard was lithium was a precious metal--and 50\% of the world's sources were in one country (So Am). <br> <br>Also, last I heard was precious meant expensive and rare...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I heard was lithium was a precious metal--and 50 \ % of the world 's sources were in one country ( So Am ) .
Also , last I heard was precious meant expensive and rare.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I heard was lithium was a precious metal--and 50\% of the world's sources were in one country (So Am).
Also, last I heard was precious meant expensive and rare...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30932942</id>
	<title>Re:DOE is serious?</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1264692960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the computer doesn't work on holidays? what, it wants overtime?</htmltext>
<tokenext>the computer does n't work on holidays ?
what , it wants overtime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the computer doesn't work on holidays?
what, it wants overtime?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928404</id>
	<title>Re:Recharge time?</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1264602120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>8 hour charge for <i>how many miles</i>?  I don't know about you, but my daily commute isn't 600 miles.</p><p>It's level 1 or level 2 charging at home, and level 3 or higher for long trips.  And that's what it's going to be for probably the next century.  It doesn't make sense to do it any other way.  You only need fast charges when you're taking long trips, so you need fast charging stations available on the road.  Around home, you want slow charging, which is gentler on the batteries (and, not to mention, the grid), as well as being more efficient.</p><p>By the way, for those who are curious:</p><p>Level 1: ~110V, 20A or less.  US standard: SAE J1772 or the ever-common NEMA 5-15 plug.<br>Level 2: ~220V, 80A or less.  US standard: SAE J1772.  European standard: Mennekes, based on IEC 60309.<br>Level 3: ~440V, up to "hundreds" of amps.  No official standard, but the TESCO connector seems to be becoming dominant.</p><p>The most powerful EV charger I'm aware of is an 800kW charger created by Aerovironment for TARDEC.  That's ~800V and ~1000A, if I recall correctly.  It's about the size of four vending machines pushed together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>8 hour charge for how many miles ?
I do n't know about you , but my daily commute is n't 600 miles.It 's level 1 or level 2 charging at home , and level 3 or higher for long trips .
And that 's what it 's going to be for probably the next century .
It does n't make sense to do it any other way .
You only need fast charges when you 're taking long trips , so you need fast charging stations available on the road .
Around home , you want slow charging , which is gentler on the batteries ( and , not to mention , the grid ) , as well as being more efficient.By the way , for those who are curious : Level 1 : ~ 110V , 20A or less .
US standard : SAE J1772 or the ever-common NEMA 5-15 plug.Level 2 : ~ 220V , 80A or less .
US standard : SAE J1772 .
European standard : Mennekes , based on IEC 60309.Level 3 : ~ 440V , up to " hundreds " of amps .
No official standard , but the TESCO connector seems to be becoming dominant.The most powerful EV charger I 'm aware of is an 800kW charger created by Aerovironment for TARDEC .
That 's ~ 800V and ~ 1000A , if I recall correctly .
It 's about the size of four vending machines pushed together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8 hour charge for how many miles?
I don't know about you, but my daily commute isn't 600 miles.It's level 1 or level 2 charging at home, and level 3 or higher for long trips.
And that's what it's going to be for probably the next century.
It doesn't make sense to do it any other way.
You only need fast charges when you're taking long trips, so you need fast charging stations available on the road.
Around home, you want slow charging, which is gentler on the batteries (and, not to mention, the grid), as well as being more efficient.By the way, for those who are curious:Level 1: ~110V, 20A or less.
US standard: SAE J1772 or the ever-common NEMA 5-15 plug.Level 2: ~220V, 80A or less.
US standard: SAE J1772.
European standard: Mennekes, based on IEC 60309.Level 3: ~440V, up to "hundreds" of amps.
No official standard, but the TESCO connector seems to be becoming dominant.The most powerful EV charger I'm aware of is an 800kW charger created by Aerovironment for TARDEC.
That's ~800V and ~1000A, if I recall correctly.
It's about the size of four vending machines pushed together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931564</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>Warbothong</author>
	<datestamp>1264680360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Digital quantum battery: This is my favorite</p></div><p>Sounds like the marketing department's favourite too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital quantum battery : This is my favoriteSounds like the marketing department 's favourite too ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digital quantum battery: This is my favoriteSounds like the marketing department's favourite too ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927604</id>
	<title>Controversial?</title>
	<author>WilliamBaughman</author>
	<datestamp>1264597260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The controversy surrounds the fact that they tend to be expensive and use an energy-dense, highly flammable metal, to react with the readily available oxygen in the air.</p></div><p>TFA doesn't say if these lithium-air batteries are more flammable than other lithium batteries.  "Controversial" should probably be dropped from the summary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The controversy surrounds the fact that they tend to be expensive and use an energy-dense , highly flammable metal , to react with the readily available oxygen in the air.TFA does n't say if these lithium-air batteries are more flammable than other lithium batteries .
" Controversial " should probably be dropped from the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The controversy surrounds the fact that they tend to be expensive and use an energy-dense, highly flammable metal, to react with the readily available oxygen in the air.TFA doesn't say if these lithium-air batteries are more flammable than other lithium batteries.
"Controversial" should probably be dropped from the summary.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928526</id>
	<title>Re:Gasoline's energy density is a fundamental limi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264603200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm... No it's not. It may be one of the best energy densities that we've found yet for relatively-safe, convenient, and stable common compounds, but it's nowhere near "the most dense". Most rocket fuels, explosives, and the class of more-efficient combustion products (such as hydrogen) are all better. They just have this annoying tendency to release their energy unexpectedly, all at once, or both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm... No it 's not .
It may be one of the best energy densities that we 've found yet for relatively-safe , convenient , and stable common compounds , but it 's nowhere near " the most dense " .
Most rocket fuels , explosives , and the class of more-efficient combustion products ( such as hydrogen ) are all better .
They just have this annoying tendency to release their energy unexpectedly , all at once , or both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm... No it's not.
It may be one of the best energy densities that we've found yet for relatively-safe, convenient, and stable common compounds, but it's nowhere near "the most dense".
Most rocket fuels, explosives, and the class of more-efficient combustion products (such as hydrogen) are all better.
They just have this annoying tendency to release their energy unexpectedly, all at once, or both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928830</id>
	<title>I'm holding out for 1000 miles per charge</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1264605540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm holding out for 1000 miles per charge, and no, I am not being facetious. I think THAT will be the real game changer, and here's why:</p><p>One thousand miles is pretty much the limit on what you can drive in one day - that's getting on the Interstate and just rolling, with minimal stops, for about 12 hours. I don't know about anybody else, but I find that's pretty much the limit for me.</p><p>Now, let us consider a car with 400 mile per charge range - that's about what most gas or diesel cars can get on a tank of fuel. You have to refuel about 3 times a day, more or less. Right now, the average gas car can refuel in about 4 minutes from the time you pull up to the pump to the time you pull away (and that's assuming a slow pump and a big tank).</p><p>OK, first, consider what happens when you extend the refuel time from 4 minutes to 16 minutes - which is still a pretty fast charge time for an electric vehicle. No matter what, a refuel/recharge station on the interstate is going to have to service the same number of vehicles per hour, so if you increase the refuel time by 4, you have to increase the number of refueling sites (analogous to the number of gas pumps) by 4, and thus you have increased the land required for the station - roughly by 4 as well (I'm assuming that all the people that are waiting 16 minutes for their car to charge are going to go into the store, so the store gets bigger too). I'll leave the cases of longer charge times yet to the reader.</p><p>OK, now, no matter what the charging time is, assuming electric vehicles don't get much more efficient, you are going to have to deliver the same number of watts to the station, and that is a LOT of watts. (again, if each car takes X watt-hours of energy, and a station has to service Y cars per hour, then the result is the station needs X*Y watts of power, no matter how long a charge takes.) Go watch your average interstate gas station (or hell, ANY gas station), and record how many cars an hour it services. Now, look at how many watt-hours you need for a 250 mile Roadster to charge up (and then multiply by 400/250 to get the energy for something with the same range as a gas burner). Work out how many TENS of megawatts the station is going to need - you are pretty much talking a substation dedicated to the station.</p><p>OK, but how does that magic 1000 miles change anything? Simple - instead of adding all the electric car infrastructure at filling stations, you instead can add it at motels and homes, AND you can increase the charging time to about 6 hours or so. You spread out the load across a larger number of sites, and reduce the power per site. If I can roll up to a Motel 6, get my room, plug my car into a post (and lock things so that the annoying kiddies cannot unplug my car during the night), swipe my card on the post, catch 6-8 hours of sleep, and have my car ready for another day's driving, I'm all set. Likewise, if I can charge my car at home, over night, and know I have enough energy to meet the day's needs - not just for a typical short run commute, but for anything, even the first leg of a cross-contry trip - then I am all set.</p><p>Now, several people are likely thinking (and getting ready to reply) "Then have 2 cars: an electric commuter and a combustion-powered long haul car." That would be great in some places, but where I live owning more than one car gets very expensive even excluding the cost of the car itself - tags, taxes, insurance all go up. I've run the numbers, and economically it makes more sense for me to buy gas than to buy another car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm holding out for 1000 miles per charge , and no , I am not being facetious .
I think THAT will be the real game changer , and here 's why : One thousand miles is pretty much the limit on what you can drive in one day - that 's getting on the Interstate and just rolling , with minimal stops , for about 12 hours .
I do n't know about anybody else , but I find that 's pretty much the limit for me.Now , let us consider a car with 400 mile per charge range - that 's about what most gas or diesel cars can get on a tank of fuel .
You have to refuel about 3 times a day , more or less .
Right now , the average gas car can refuel in about 4 minutes from the time you pull up to the pump to the time you pull away ( and that 's assuming a slow pump and a big tank ) .OK , first , consider what happens when you extend the refuel time from 4 minutes to 16 minutes - which is still a pretty fast charge time for an electric vehicle .
No matter what , a refuel/recharge station on the interstate is going to have to service the same number of vehicles per hour , so if you increase the refuel time by 4 , you have to increase the number of refueling sites ( analogous to the number of gas pumps ) by 4 , and thus you have increased the land required for the station - roughly by 4 as well ( I 'm assuming that all the people that are waiting 16 minutes for their car to charge are going to go into the store , so the store gets bigger too ) .
I 'll leave the cases of longer charge times yet to the reader.OK , now , no matter what the charging time is , assuming electric vehicles do n't get much more efficient , you are going to have to deliver the same number of watts to the station , and that is a LOT of watts .
( again , if each car takes X watt-hours of energy , and a station has to service Y cars per hour , then the result is the station needs X * Y watts of power , no matter how long a charge takes .
) Go watch your average interstate gas station ( or hell , ANY gas station ) , and record how many cars an hour it services .
Now , look at how many watt-hours you need for a 250 mile Roadster to charge up ( and then multiply by 400/250 to get the energy for something with the same range as a gas burner ) .
Work out how many TENS of megawatts the station is going to need - you are pretty much talking a substation dedicated to the station.OK , but how does that magic 1000 miles change anything ?
Simple - instead of adding all the electric car infrastructure at filling stations , you instead can add it at motels and homes , AND you can increase the charging time to about 6 hours or so .
You spread out the load across a larger number of sites , and reduce the power per site .
If I can roll up to a Motel 6 , get my room , plug my car into a post ( and lock things so that the annoying kiddies can not unplug my car during the night ) , swipe my card on the post , catch 6-8 hours of sleep , and have my car ready for another day 's driving , I 'm all set .
Likewise , if I can charge my car at home , over night , and know I have enough energy to meet the day 's needs - not just for a typical short run commute , but for anything , even the first leg of a cross-contry trip - then I am all set.Now , several people are likely thinking ( and getting ready to reply ) " Then have 2 cars : an electric commuter and a combustion-powered long haul car .
" That would be great in some places , but where I live owning more than one car gets very expensive even excluding the cost of the car itself - tags , taxes , insurance all go up .
I 've run the numbers , and economically it makes more sense for me to buy gas than to buy another car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm holding out for 1000 miles per charge, and no, I am not being facetious.
I think THAT will be the real game changer, and here's why:One thousand miles is pretty much the limit on what you can drive in one day - that's getting on the Interstate and just rolling, with minimal stops, for about 12 hours.
I don't know about anybody else, but I find that's pretty much the limit for me.Now, let us consider a car with 400 mile per charge range - that's about what most gas or diesel cars can get on a tank of fuel.
You have to refuel about 3 times a day, more or less.
Right now, the average gas car can refuel in about 4 minutes from the time you pull up to the pump to the time you pull away (and that's assuming a slow pump and a big tank).OK, first, consider what happens when you extend the refuel time from 4 minutes to 16 minutes - which is still a pretty fast charge time for an electric vehicle.
No matter what, a refuel/recharge station on the interstate is going to have to service the same number of vehicles per hour, so if you increase the refuel time by 4, you have to increase the number of refueling sites (analogous to the number of gas pumps) by 4, and thus you have increased the land required for the station - roughly by 4 as well (I'm assuming that all the people that are waiting 16 minutes for their car to charge are going to go into the store, so the store gets bigger too).
I'll leave the cases of longer charge times yet to the reader.OK, now, no matter what the charging time is, assuming electric vehicles don't get much more efficient, you are going to have to deliver the same number of watts to the station, and that is a LOT of watts.
(again, if each car takes X watt-hours of energy, and a station has to service Y cars per hour, then the result is the station needs X*Y watts of power, no matter how long a charge takes.
) Go watch your average interstate gas station (or hell, ANY gas station), and record how many cars an hour it services.
Now, look at how many watt-hours you need for a 250 mile Roadster to charge up (and then multiply by 400/250 to get the energy for something with the same range as a gas burner).
Work out how many TENS of megawatts the station is going to need - you are pretty much talking a substation dedicated to the station.OK, but how does that magic 1000 miles change anything?
Simple - instead of adding all the electric car infrastructure at filling stations, you instead can add it at motels and homes, AND you can increase the charging time to about 6 hours or so.
You spread out the load across a larger number of sites, and reduce the power per site.
If I can roll up to a Motel 6, get my room, plug my car into a post (and lock things so that the annoying kiddies cannot unplug my car during the night), swipe my card on the post, catch 6-8 hours of sleep, and have my car ready for another day's driving, I'm all set.
Likewise, if I can charge my car at home, over night, and know I have enough energy to meet the day's needs - not just for a typical short run commute, but for anything, even the first leg of a cross-contry trip - then I am all set.Now, several people are likely thinking (and getting ready to reply) "Then have 2 cars: an electric commuter and a combustion-powered long haul car.
" That would be great in some places, but where I live owning more than one car gets very expensive even excluding the cost of the car itself - tags, taxes, insurance all go up.
I've run the numbers, and economically it makes more sense for me to buy gas than to buy another car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30940252</id>
	<title>Re:Fingers Crossed</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1264670700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Energy-dense storage media have been the missing link in a lot of relatively clean energy generation schemes.</p></div></blockquote><p>No.  Pumped hydro is about the simplest technology you can get, and it can get extremely high efficiency.  And all without a massive bank of consumable batteries.</p><p>The only thing holding back solar and wind is that it's not as cheap as coal, and the impetus for using it hasn't been around long enough that anyone has had a chance to build out.  Plans for solar power plants in CA are going up like wildfire, but it's going to take many years before enough of them are constructed to make a notable dent in our overall power usage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Energy-dense storage media have been the missing link in a lot of relatively clean energy generation schemes.No .
Pumped hydro is about the simplest technology you can get , and it can get extremely high efficiency .
And all without a massive bank of consumable batteries.The only thing holding back solar and wind is that it 's not as cheap as coal , and the impetus for using it has n't been around long enough that anyone has had a chance to build out .
Plans for solar power plants in CA are going up like wildfire , but it 's going to take many years before enough of them are constructed to make a notable dent in our overall power usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energy-dense storage media have been the missing link in a lot of relatively clean energy generation schemes.No.
Pumped hydro is about the simplest technology you can get, and it can get extremely high efficiency.
And all without a massive bank of consumable batteries.The only thing holding back solar and wind is that it's not as cheap as coal, and the impetus for using it hasn't been around long enough that anyone has had a chance to build out.
Plans for solar power plants in CA are going up like wildfire, but it's going to take many years before enough of them are constructed to make a notable dent in our overall power usage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928820</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>Sabriel</author>
	<datestamp>1264605480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rei, I'd be interested to see your response to <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1527276&amp;cid=30928296" title="slashdot.org">viking80's comment</a> [slashdot.org] further down the page - I'll quote it here:</p><blockquote><div><p>Gasoline at 50MJ/kg is pretty much the most dense energy storage possible in this universe excluding nuclear energy. (Hydrogen is 150MJ/kg, and might beat gas, but it needs to be in liquid form. Same range anyway) It exclude the weigh of the oxygen as well.</p><p>This is kind of a fundamental limit as to how much energy can be stored in *any* system using potential energy of the electric field of matter. That includes (nano)springs, batteries and small flywheels (flywheels bigger than the earth with relativistic speed could exceed this limit)</p><p>You may get 2x better efficiency in an electric motor, but I can not see how a battery can approach this value. A gas tank probably weighs 5\% of the fuel it holds, and to build a battery where all infrastructure to support the (very) active material only weighs a few percent of the battery wold be very hard even if you find such a chemistry.</p></div></blockquote><p>How do those new battery technologies you spoke of compare to / affect this?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rei , I 'd be interested to see your response to viking80 's comment [ slashdot.org ] further down the page - I 'll quote it here : Gasoline at 50MJ/kg is pretty much the most dense energy storage possible in this universe excluding nuclear energy .
( Hydrogen is 150MJ/kg , and might beat gas , but it needs to be in liquid form .
Same range anyway ) It exclude the weigh of the oxygen as well.This is kind of a fundamental limit as to how much energy can be stored in * any * system using potential energy of the electric field of matter .
That includes ( nano ) springs , batteries and small flywheels ( flywheels bigger than the earth with relativistic speed could exceed this limit ) You may get 2x better efficiency in an electric motor , but I can not see how a battery can approach this value .
A gas tank probably weighs 5 \ % of the fuel it holds , and to build a battery where all infrastructure to support the ( very ) active material only weighs a few percent of the battery wold be very hard even if you find such a chemistry.How do those new battery technologies you spoke of compare to / affect this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rei, I'd be interested to see your response to viking80's comment [slashdot.org] further down the page - I'll quote it here:Gasoline at 50MJ/kg is pretty much the most dense energy storage possible in this universe excluding nuclear energy.
(Hydrogen is 150MJ/kg, and might beat gas, but it needs to be in liquid form.
Same range anyway) It exclude the weigh of the oxygen as well.This is kind of a fundamental limit as to how much energy can be stored in *any* system using potential energy of the electric field of matter.
That includes (nano)springs, batteries and small flywheels (flywheels bigger than the earth with relativistic speed could exceed this limit)You may get 2x better efficiency in an electric motor, but I can not see how a battery can approach this value.
A gas tank probably weighs 5\% of the fuel it holds, and to build a battery where all infrastructure to support the (very) active material only weighs a few percent of the battery wold be very hard even if you find such a chemistry.How do those new battery technologies you spoke of compare to / affect this?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928692</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>samurphy21</author>
	<datestamp>1264604520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The latest technique involves wicking the sulfur into the pores of mesoporous carbon and then functionalizing the outside of the carbon with polyethylene glycol to keep the hydrophobic polysulfides inside when they form.</i></p><p>I got a little bit hard right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The latest technique involves wicking the sulfur into the pores of mesoporous carbon and then functionalizing the outside of the carbon with polyethylene glycol to keep the hydrophobic polysulfides inside when they form.I got a little bit hard right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The latest technique involves wicking the sulfur into the pores of mesoporous carbon and then functionalizing the outside of the carbon with polyethylene glycol to keep the hydrophobic polysulfides inside when they form.I got a little bit hard right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30933928</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1264696920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lithium-air is, IMHO, one of the least promising upcoming battery techs. It's really more like a fuel cell, and to be blunt, fuel cells suck. By that, I mean:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; * Expensive per watt<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; * Short lifespans<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; * Inefficient</p><p>There are many, many promising next-gen battery techs other than li-air. Here's just a couple of my favorites.</p></div><p>You seem very knowledgeable. Which is to say, you've easily surpassed my ignorant bullshit detector on the subject matter.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) Perhaps you'd care to speculate, wildly even, as to why big names such as IBM and the DOE would will be willing to heavily invest so many cycles into Lithium-air if the base technology sucks so badly. Does the fact that they're willing to invest in this technology hint they have some significant reasons to believe this technology trumps existing efforts? Or is it possible the applicable patent portfolio is more open with this given technology and its strictly a business/patent decision. If its the later, it still strikes me as odd because who cares if they can patent a crap-technology if they can't build a business model around it?</p><p>At any rate, please speculate away...</p><p>Also, are you a chemist? Do you work in the energy storage field?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lithium-air is , IMHO , one of the least promising upcoming battery techs .
It 's really more like a fuel cell , and to be blunt , fuel cells suck .
By that , I mean :     * Expensive per watt     * Short lifespans     * InefficientThere are many , many promising next-gen battery techs other than li-air .
Here 's just a couple of my favorites.You seem very knowledgeable .
Which is to say , you 've easily surpassed my ignorant bullshit detector on the subject matter .
; ) Perhaps you 'd care to speculate , wildly even , as to why big names such as IBM and the DOE would will be willing to heavily invest so many cycles into Lithium-air if the base technology sucks so badly .
Does the fact that they 're willing to invest in this technology hint they have some significant reasons to believe this technology trumps existing efforts ?
Or is it possible the applicable patent portfolio is more open with this given technology and its strictly a business/patent decision .
If its the later , it still strikes me as odd because who cares if they can patent a crap-technology if they ca n't build a business model around it ? At any rate , please speculate away...Also , are you a chemist ?
Do you work in the energy storage field ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lithium-air is, IMHO, one of the least promising upcoming battery techs.
It's really more like a fuel cell, and to be blunt, fuel cells suck.
By that, I mean:
    * Expensive per watt
    * Short lifespans
    * InefficientThere are many, many promising next-gen battery techs other than li-air.
Here's just a couple of my favorites.You seem very knowledgeable.
Which is to say, you've easily surpassed my ignorant bullshit detector on the subject matter.
;) Perhaps you'd care to speculate, wildly even, as to why big names such as IBM and the DOE would will be willing to heavily invest so many cycles into Lithium-air if the base technology sucks so badly.
Does the fact that they're willing to invest in this technology hint they have some significant reasons to believe this technology trumps existing efforts?
Or is it possible the applicable patent portfolio is more open with this given technology and its strictly a business/patent decision.
If its the later, it still strikes me as odd because who cares if they can patent a crap-technology if they can't build a business model around it?At any rate, please speculate away...Also, are you a chemist?
Do you work in the energy storage field?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928590</id>
	<title>One Word... EEStor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264603800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and... hopefully soon...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and... hopefully soon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and... hopefully soon...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927582</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>GIL\_Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1264597140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, if it pans out and is semi-affordable it would be great. I can't really reasonably do an all electric now because my commute one way is 38 miles with no place to plug in at work. With a little bit longer trip on the way home (picking the kids up from school, etc.) it is over 80 miles before being home to charge. Even 200 miles on a charge would make this more attractive, although some folks would still want to have some sort of "battery swap" stations along the interstates so that they could take longer road trips.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , if it pans out and is semi-affordable it would be great .
I ca n't really reasonably do an all electric now because my commute one way is 38 miles with no place to plug in at work .
With a little bit longer trip on the way home ( picking the kids up from school , etc .
) it is over 80 miles before being home to charge .
Even 200 miles on a charge would make this more attractive , although some folks would still want to have some sort of " battery swap " stations along the interstates so that they could take longer road trips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, if it pans out and is semi-affordable it would be great.
I can't really reasonably do an all electric now because my commute one way is 38 miles with no place to plug in at work.
With a little bit longer trip on the way home (picking the kids up from school, etc.
) it is over 80 miles before being home to charge.
Even 200 miles on a charge would make this more attractive, although some folks would still want to have some sort of "battery swap" stations along the interstates so that they could take longer road trips.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928348</id>
	<title>Re:looks like another pinto car</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1264601640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, <a href="http://www.egmcartech.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/tesla\_touareg\_prius\_crash.jpg" title="egmcartech.com">really explosive</a> [egmcartech.com].  And those are cobalt-based cells, the kind that everyone worries about but which are not used in most EVs (just Tesla and Tesla-derivatives).</p><p>How much worse of an accident do you get than one in which you end up with an SUV sitting on top of your car and your battery pack fully bashed in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , really explosive [ egmcartech.com ] .
And those are cobalt-based cells , the kind that everyone worries about but which are not used in most EVs ( just Tesla and Tesla-derivatives ) .How much worse of an accident do you get than one in which you end up with an SUV sitting on top of your car and your battery pack fully bashed in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, really explosive [egmcartech.com].
And those are cobalt-based cells, the kind that everyone worries about but which are not used in most EVs (just Tesla and Tesla-derivatives).How much worse of an accident do you get than one in which you end up with an SUV sitting on top of your car and your battery pack fully bashed in?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931896</id>
	<title>Re:I'm holding out for 1000 miles per charge</title>
	<author>andrewbaldwin</author>
	<datestamp>1264685580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if we ignore the more significant safety aspects of driving for 12 hours at an average of over 80 [which means with stops you are travelling faster than that] a battery based solution is still achievable with lower capacities.</p><p>Provide a "standard fit battery" for all cars.</p><p>Then you just drive to a recharge station, hand over your flat battery and some cash and pick up a freshly charged new one.  The recharge station can charge up the flat batteries at their leisure (e.g. overnight on lower cost tariffs)</p><p>Stopping for 10 - 15 minutes every 100 - 150 miles is no bad thing - it will force you to take a break (avoid hunger/dehydration), stretch legs (to avoid DVT) and unwind (to rest yourself and help get your concentration back).</p><p>Biggest challenge is getting manufacturers to agree a common form factor - it works for household items (think AA batteries [or whatever they're called in your country] used for radios, remote controllers, torches...) - whether auto manufacturers would follow the mobile phone makers and try to get lock-in with specific battery shapes would depend on market forces and/or legislation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if we ignore the more significant safety aspects of driving for 12 hours at an average of over 80 [ which means with stops you are travelling faster than that ] a battery based solution is still achievable with lower capacities.Provide a " standard fit battery " for all cars.Then you just drive to a recharge station , hand over your flat battery and some cash and pick up a freshly charged new one .
The recharge station can charge up the flat batteries at their leisure ( e.g .
overnight on lower cost tariffs ) Stopping for 10 - 15 minutes every 100 - 150 miles is no bad thing - it will force you to take a break ( avoid hunger/dehydration ) , stretch legs ( to avoid DVT ) and unwind ( to rest yourself and help get your concentration back ) .Biggest challenge is getting manufacturers to agree a common form factor - it works for household items ( think AA batteries [ or whatever they 're called in your country ] used for radios , remote controllers , torches... ) - whether auto manufacturers would follow the mobile phone makers and try to get lock-in with specific battery shapes would depend on market forces and/or legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if we ignore the more significant safety aspects of driving for 12 hours at an average of over 80 [which means with stops you are travelling faster than that] a battery based solution is still achievable with lower capacities.Provide a "standard fit battery" for all cars.Then you just drive to a recharge station, hand over your flat battery and some cash and pick up a freshly charged new one.
The recharge station can charge up the flat batteries at their leisure (e.g.
overnight on lower cost tariffs)Stopping for 10 - 15 minutes every 100 - 150 miles is no bad thing - it will force you to take a break (avoid hunger/dehydration), stretch legs (to avoid DVT) and unwind (to rest yourself and help get your concentration back).Biggest challenge is getting manufacturers to agree a common form factor - it works for household items (think AA batteries [or whatever they're called in your country] used for radios, remote controllers, torches...) - whether auto manufacturers would follow the mobile phone makers and try to get lock-in with specific battery shapes would depend on market forces and/or legislation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927640</id>
	<title>Re:looks like another pinto car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264597440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They use highly flammable metals to do this so we will have another round of explosive cars out on the highways</p></div><p>Is it more flammable then gasoline?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and being metals they will require some thought into the use of water to put the flames out at accidents.</p></div><p>Why are you concerned, because of the electrical shock risk?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They use highly flammable metals to do this so we will have another round of explosive cars out on the highwaysIs it more flammable then gasoline ? and being metals they will require some thought into the use of water to put the flames out at accidents.Why are you concerned , because of the electrical shock risk ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They use highly flammable metals to do this so we will have another round of explosive cars out on the highwaysIs it more flammable then gasoline?and being metals they will require some thought into the use of water to put the flames out at accidents.Why are you concerned, because of the electrical shock risk?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30933590</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1264695960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because this is a game charging technology, if it pans out.</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because this is a game charging technology , if it pans out.There , fixed that for you .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because this is a game charging technology, if it pans out.There, fixed that for you.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30935148</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a battery researcher, just an interested high school student.</p><p>I think the most promising EV battery is actually an ignored previous-gen battery.  The nickel-iron battery. These things are currently only slightly better than lead-acid batteries in energy density (slightly worst than nimh), but last forever (50+ years). They theoretically could have the same energy density as the Tesla's battery. Electric vehicles are not energy density limited, they are cost limited. $20,000 is just too expensive for a family car. Battery wear-out is a real problem as well - we need a 10+ year battery lifetime. Right now, they are only made in a few places, and are ridiculously expensive, because of the small volume. They used to be only slight more expensive than lead-acid (cheap enough).</p><p>The lithium-ion battery requires high purity (so does nimh bot not as bad), and that's really going to be a problem for lithium air. If certain elements get into the battery it will "clog" the membranes and cathodes, and will "jam" the battery. Fuel cells of many types are also affected by this issue (carbon dioxide reacts with the electrolyte solution, and will "jam" the fuel cell). The issue of purity is an unspoken-of one that is very bad for lithium. Nickel-iron does not require high purity and so can be much cheaper than lithium. Keep in mind that the component materials of a battery are often quite cheap (total lithium in a Tesla works out to about $500 dollars IIRC). Manufacturing and purification is where the costs are. My friend said (I don't know if this is true) that lithium had to go through a six or seven step purification process to be usable.</p><p>The problem with metallic lithium in both lithium-poly and lithium-sulfur is that lithium is a highly flammable and reactive metal (Search lithium+water). One element that I would like to nominate as replacing it is boron, which has a much higher energy density when burned in air. If you'd like to experiment, it can be found at walgreens in the form of boric acid. Silicon and aluminium also have high energy density.</p><p>I'm going to propose an even more "left of field" idea: superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES). If I understand correctly, a 10 megawatt will fit under the hood of an SUV and send it half way around the world on a single charge. It would also cost ten million dollars and require liquid nitrogen making equipment, but that's beside the point. A small SMES, as 12 cm radius toroidal coil made of magnesium diboride, could store 55 kWh (Tesla battery). It would, however, need liquid hydrogen cooling. When room temperature superconductors are invented, all chemical batteries will be obsolete. Supercapacitors will be too.</p><p>I think all are vehicles aren't going to be pure electric, but plug-in hybrid, with about 50 to 100 mile electric range. The problem is that it's just too much energy too fast through the grid for fast charging. Battery swap might work, but it has its own problems (battery wear-out included). We could all have biodiesel/natural gas/ethanol (I'm no biofuel expert) generators in our electric cars, so we can take road trips. I like Tesla's idea of having the desired range optional on model-S, so people with long distance can travel of battery. Remember people, cost is the obstacle, not energy density. Batteries and fuel cells are just too expensive right now to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a battery researcher , just an interested high school student.I think the most promising EV battery is actually an ignored previous-gen battery .
The nickel-iron battery .
These things are currently only slightly better than lead-acid batteries in energy density ( slightly worst than nimh ) , but last forever ( 50 + years ) .
They theoretically could have the same energy density as the Tesla 's battery .
Electric vehicles are not energy density limited , they are cost limited .
$ 20,000 is just too expensive for a family car .
Battery wear-out is a real problem as well - we need a 10 + year battery lifetime .
Right now , they are only made in a few places , and are ridiculously expensive , because of the small volume .
They used to be only slight more expensive than lead-acid ( cheap enough ) .The lithium-ion battery requires high purity ( so does nimh bot not as bad ) , and that 's really going to be a problem for lithium air .
If certain elements get into the battery it will " clog " the membranes and cathodes , and will " jam " the battery .
Fuel cells of many types are also affected by this issue ( carbon dioxide reacts with the electrolyte solution , and will " jam " the fuel cell ) .
The issue of purity is an unspoken-of one that is very bad for lithium .
Nickel-iron does not require high purity and so can be much cheaper than lithium .
Keep in mind that the component materials of a battery are often quite cheap ( total lithium in a Tesla works out to about $ 500 dollars IIRC ) .
Manufacturing and purification is where the costs are .
My friend said ( I do n't know if this is true ) that lithium had to go through a six or seven step purification process to be usable.The problem with metallic lithium in both lithium-poly and lithium-sulfur is that lithium is a highly flammable and reactive metal ( Search lithium + water ) .
One element that I would like to nominate as replacing it is boron , which has a much higher energy density when burned in air .
If you 'd like to experiment , it can be found at walgreens in the form of boric acid .
Silicon and aluminium also have high energy density.I 'm going to propose an even more " left of field " idea : superconducting magnetic energy storage ( SMES ) .
If I understand correctly , a 10 megawatt will fit under the hood of an SUV and send it half way around the world on a single charge .
It would also cost ten million dollars and require liquid nitrogen making equipment , but that 's beside the point .
A small SMES , as 12 cm radius toroidal coil made of magnesium diboride , could store 55 kWh ( Tesla battery ) .
It would , however , need liquid hydrogen cooling .
When room temperature superconductors are invented , all chemical batteries will be obsolete .
Supercapacitors will be too.I think all are vehicles are n't going to be pure electric , but plug-in hybrid , with about 50 to 100 mile electric range .
The problem is that it 's just too much energy too fast through the grid for fast charging .
Battery swap might work , but it has its own problems ( battery wear-out included ) .
We could all have biodiesel/natural gas/ethanol ( I 'm no biofuel expert ) generators in our electric cars , so we can take road trips .
I like Tesla 's idea of having the desired range optional on model-S , so people with long distance can travel of battery .
Remember people , cost is the obstacle , not energy density .
Batteries and fuel cells are just too expensive right now to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a battery researcher, just an interested high school student.I think the most promising EV battery is actually an ignored previous-gen battery.
The nickel-iron battery.
These things are currently only slightly better than lead-acid batteries in energy density (slightly worst than nimh), but last forever (50+ years).
They theoretically could have the same energy density as the Tesla's battery.
Electric vehicles are not energy density limited, they are cost limited.
$20,000 is just too expensive for a family car.
Battery wear-out is a real problem as well - we need a 10+ year battery lifetime.
Right now, they are only made in a few places, and are ridiculously expensive, because of the small volume.
They used to be only slight more expensive than lead-acid (cheap enough).The lithium-ion battery requires high purity (so does nimh bot not as bad), and that's really going to be a problem for lithium air.
If certain elements get into the battery it will "clog" the membranes and cathodes, and will "jam" the battery.
Fuel cells of many types are also affected by this issue (carbon dioxide reacts with the electrolyte solution, and will "jam" the fuel cell).
The issue of purity is an unspoken-of one that is very bad for lithium.
Nickel-iron does not require high purity and so can be much cheaper than lithium.
Keep in mind that the component materials of a battery are often quite cheap (total lithium in a Tesla works out to about $500 dollars IIRC).
Manufacturing and purification is where the costs are.
My friend said (I don't know if this is true) that lithium had to go through a six or seven step purification process to be usable.The problem with metallic lithium in both lithium-poly and lithium-sulfur is that lithium is a highly flammable and reactive metal (Search lithium+water).
One element that I would like to nominate as replacing it is boron, which has a much higher energy density when burned in air.
If you'd like to experiment, it can be found at walgreens in the form of boric acid.
Silicon and aluminium also have high energy density.I'm going to propose an even more "left of field" idea: superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES).
If I understand correctly, a 10 megawatt will fit under the hood of an SUV and send it half way around the world on a single charge.
It would also cost ten million dollars and require liquid nitrogen making equipment, but that's beside the point.
A small SMES, as 12 cm radius toroidal coil made of magnesium diboride, could store 55 kWh (Tesla battery).
It would, however, need liquid hydrogen cooling.
When room temperature superconductors are invented, all chemical batteries will be obsolete.
Supercapacitors will be too.I think all are vehicles aren't going to be pure electric, but plug-in hybrid, with about 50 to 100 mile electric range.
The problem is that it's just too much energy too fast through the grid for fast charging.
Battery swap might work, but it has its own problems (battery wear-out included).
We could all have biodiesel/natural gas/ethanol (I'm no biofuel expert) generators in our electric cars, so we can take road trips.
I like Tesla's idea of having the desired range optional on model-S, so people with long distance can travel of battery.
Remember people, cost is the obstacle, not energy density.
Batteries and fuel cells are just too expensive right now to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931282</id>
	<title>Re:Recharge time and price bigger issue</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1264677240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Battery recharge time is less of an issue than getting the electricity to the cars without a huge power infrastructure upgrade (nationwide).</p><p>To give you an idea of what needs to happen, I live in an island with a population of 80,000. There are probably 35,000 vehicles on the road. We have a combined cycle gas turbine power station of 35MWe capacity, and a waste incinerator that generates another 7MWe. Considering the longest return journey you can make here is only about 80 miles or so, it would be pretty practical to have an electric car.</p><p>Consider a battery pack that holds 60kWh (not unreasonable for a small electric vehicle) that can be charged in 5 minutes, that is, each charger is going to want to draw at least 720kW. It only takes 58 people charging their cars simultaneously to *completely exhaust* all of the island's *total* generating capacity. Of course people like things like the lights to be on, their computers to work etc. so with the current generating capacity, in reality only about 5 to 10 people can ever charge their cars at any one time. There's usually that many cars at any one time during the day at any island filling station. We would need something like four or five times the generating capacity, and it would have to be very "throttleable" to track demand, so it would all have to be gas turbine. Forget nuclear or wind.</p><p>Cars tend to sit most of the day, and have hours and hours available to sit charging. It would be far better to have many slow charging stations in car parks and at homes to charge vehicles overnight when demand is low and there's capacity to spare, and this would fit in very well with nuclear power generation. Better still, have a standard battery form factor and battery exchange stations, so you still get a quick "fill up", but without having to draw ridiculous amounts of current off the grid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Battery recharge time is less of an issue than getting the electricity to the cars without a huge power infrastructure upgrade ( nationwide ) .To give you an idea of what needs to happen , I live in an island with a population of 80,000 .
There are probably 35,000 vehicles on the road .
We have a combined cycle gas turbine power station of 35MWe capacity , and a waste incinerator that generates another 7MWe .
Considering the longest return journey you can make here is only about 80 miles or so , it would be pretty practical to have an electric car.Consider a battery pack that holds 60kWh ( not unreasonable for a small electric vehicle ) that can be charged in 5 minutes , that is , each charger is going to want to draw at least 720kW .
It only takes 58 people charging their cars simultaneously to * completely exhaust * all of the island 's * total * generating capacity .
Of course people like things like the lights to be on , their computers to work etc .
so with the current generating capacity , in reality only about 5 to 10 people can ever charge their cars at any one time .
There 's usually that many cars at any one time during the day at any island filling station .
We would need something like four or five times the generating capacity , and it would have to be very " throttleable " to track demand , so it would all have to be gas turbine .
Forget nuclear or wind.Cars tend to sit most of the day , and have hours and hours available to sit charging .
It would be far better to have many slow charging stations in car parks and at homes to charge vehicles overnight when demand is low and there 's capacity to spare , and this would fit in very well with nuclear power generation .
Better still , have a standard battery form factor and battery exchange stations , so you still get a quick " fill up " , but without having to draw ridiculous amounts of current off the grid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Battery recharge time is less of an issue than getting the electricity to the cars without a huge power infrastructure upgrade (nationwide).To give you an idea of what needs to happen, I live in an island with a population of 80,000.
There are probably 35,000 vehicles on the road.
We have a combined cycle gas turbine power station of 35MWe capacity, and a waste incinerator that generates another 7MWe.
Considering the longest return journey you can make here is only about 80 miles or so, it would be pretty practical to have an electric car.Consider a battery pack that holds 60kWh (not unreasonable for a small electric vehicle) that can be charged in 5 minutes, that is, each charger is going to want to draw at least 720kW.
It only takes 58 people charging their cars simultaneously to *completely exhaust* all of the island's *total* generating capacity.
Of course people like things like the lights to be on, their computers to work etc.
so with the current generating capacity, in reality only about 5 to 10 people can ever charge their cars at any one time.
There's usually that many cars at any one time during the day at any island filling station.
We would need something like four or five times the generating capacity, and it would have to be very "throttleable" to track demand, so it would all have to be gas turbine.
Forget nuclear or wind.Cars tend to sit most of the day, and have hours and hours available to sit charging.
It would be far better to have many slow charging stations in car parks and at homes to charge vehicles overnight when demand is low and there's capacity to spare, and this would fit in very well with nuclear power generation.
Better still, have a standard battery form factor and battery exchange stations, so you still get a quick "fill up", but without having to draw ridiculous amounts of current off the grid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928548</id>
	<title>Re:absolutely</title>
	<author>solevita</author>
	<datestamp>1264603440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you Mr AC, this thread was a little short on jokes. I was shocked. It's good to see you swimming against the current.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you Mr AC , this thread was a little short on jokes .
I was shocked .
It 's good to see you swimming against the current .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you Mr AC, this thread was a little short on jokes.
I was shocked.
It's good to see you swimming against the current.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929532</id>
	<title>Re:Mining in outerspace?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1264612860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What country is "So Am?"  Wikipedia says lithium production is currently concentrated in several South American countries.  You didn't mean the <i>continent</i> of South America, did you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What country is " So Am ?
" Wikipedia says lithium production is currently concentrated in several South American countries .
You did n't mean the continent of South America , did you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What country is "So Am?
"  Wikipedia says lithium production is currently concentrated in several South American countries.
You didn't mean the continent of South America, did you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927602</id>
	<title>Recharge time?</title>
	<author>cyberjock1980</author>
	<datestamp>1264597260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a battery of this capacity what kinds of charging time are we talking here?  I know that the standard electric cars are something around 6-8 hours.  To maintain an 8 hour charge time for something like that the current draw is going to have to be pretty darn high.  I don't know if charging a car like this is realistic.  Of course, you wouldn't need to give it a full charge every night for most people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a battery of this capacity what kinds of charging time are we talking here ?
I know that the standard electric cars are something around 6-8 hours .
To maintain an 8 hour charge time for something like that the current draw is going to have to be pretty darn high .
I do n't know if charging a car like this is realistic .
Of course , you would n't need to give it a full charge every night for most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a battery of this capacity what kinds of charging time are we talking here?
I know that the standard electric cars are something around 6-8 hours.
To maintain an 8 hour charge time for something like that the current draw is going to have to be pretty darn high.
I don't know if charging a car like this is realistic.
Of course, you wouldn't need to give it a full charge every night for most people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929098</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264608120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chevron again, just like the last consumer grade, transportation viable battery technology......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chevron again , just like the last consumer grade , transportation viable battery technology..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chevron again, just like the last consumer grade, transportation viable battery technology......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1264598040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lithium-air is, IMHO, one of the least promising upcoming battery techs.  It's really more like a fuel cell, and to be blunt, fuel cells suck.  By that, I mean:</p><p>
&nbsp; * Expensive per watt<br>
&nbsp; * Short lifespans<br>
&nbsp; * Inefficient</p><p>There are many, many promising next-gen battery techs other than li-air.  Here's just a couple of my favorites.</p><p>Lithium-sulfur: This has long been worked on, but only just recently one of its big problems has been worked around.  It offers great energy density, but some of the intermediary reaction products -- various lithium polysulfides -- are rather soluble.  They'd migrate across the membrane and precipitate out on the other side, being rendered permanently useless to the reaction and thus aging the cells very quickly.  Older solutions to try to prevent this caused dramatically lower energy density.  The latest technique involves wicking the sulfur into the pores of mesoporous carbon and then functionalizing the outside of the carbon with polyethylene glycol to keep the hydrophobic polysulfides inside when they form.  The longevity improvements were amazing, without sacrificing energy density.  We're talking that when they deliberately chose a worst-case solvent, one that's really good at dissolving polysulfides, the traditional Li-S cell lost 96\% of its sulfur in 30 cycles while theirs only lost 25\%.</p><p>Nickel-lithium: It is, quite literally, a hybrid NiMH/li-ion battery -- a traditional NiMH cathode that can hold a tremendous amount of lithium, and a lithium metal anode (almost obscene anode energy density).  That's normally impossible, since you want to run a NiMH battery with an aqueous electrolyte and your various lithium-based cells with an organic electrolyte.  They do both -- they use a new tech called a LISICON membrane to keep the two different electrolytes apart but allow lithium ions across.  An additional problem with li metal anodes is that dendrites tend to form that rupture the membrane -- but LISICON membranes are a rigid ceramic that resists dendrite damage.</p><p>Digital quantum battery: This is my favorite, because it comes straight out of left field.  It's really a type of capacitor.  Now, capacitors normally hold a lot less energy than batteries; if the voltage gets too high, you get dielectric breakdown, it arcs across, and your energy is lost.  But at very tiny scales, current must move as quanta.  So if instead of a single big capacitor, you lithographically print an array of nanoscale capacitors, all of the sudden you can make it so that you essentially can't get dielectric breakdown.  In fact, you can store so much energy that the stresses become so great that it's best to use a carbon nanotube for one of the electrodes in each nano-capacitor.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>And even ignoring next-gen battery techs, there is still *huge* range for improvement in li-ion.  In particular, for the cathodes, my favorites are layered manganese cathodes which alternate long-life forms and high energy density forms of magnanese oxides to get both properties; and fluorinated metal cathodes.  For the anodes, there's many kinds of tin and particularly silicon anodes out there that store nearly an order of magnitude more lithium than conventional graphite anodes.  Silicon anode li-ion cells are just this month starting to hit the market.  The tech has finally matured to the point where their longevity is sufficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lithium-air is , IMHO , one of the least promising upcoming battery techs .
It 's really more like a fuel cell , and to be blunt , fuel cells suck .
By that , I mean :   * Expensive per watt   * Short lifespans   * InefficientThere are many , many promising next-gen battery techs other than li-air .
Here 's just a couple of my favorites.Lithium-sulfur : This has long been worked on , but only just recently one of its big problems has been worked around .
It offers great energy density , but some of the intermediary reaction products -- various lithium polysulfides -- are rather soluble .
They 'd migrate across the membrane and precipitate out on the other side , being rendered permanently useless to the reaction and thus aging the cells very quickly .
Older solutions to try to prevent this caused dramatically lower energy density .
The latest technique involves wicking the sulfur into the pores of mesoporous carbon and then functionalizing the outside of the carbon with polyethylene glycol to keep the hydrophobic polysulfides inside when they form .
The longevity improvements were amazing , without sacrificing energy density .
We 're talking that when they deliberately chose a worst-case solvent , one that 's really good at dissolving polysulfides , the traditional Li-S cell lost 96 \ % of its sulfur in 30 cycles while theirs only lost 25 \ % .Nickel-lithium : It is , quite literally , a hybrid NiMH/li-ion battery -- a traditional NiMH cathode that can hold a tremendous amount of lithium , and a lithium metal anode ( almost obscene anode energy density ) .
That 's normally impossible , since you want to run a NiMH battery with an aqueous electrolyte and your various lithium-based cells with an organic electrolyte .
They do both -- they use a new tech called a LISICON membrane to keep the two different electrolytes apart but allow lithium ions across .
An additional problem with li metal anodes is that dendrites tend to form that rupture the membrane -- but LISICON membranes are a rigid ceramic that resists dendrite damage.Digital quantum battery : This is my favorite , because it comes straight out of left field .
It 's really a type of capacitor .
Now , capacitors normally hold a lot less energy than batteries ; if the voltage gets too high , you get dielectric breakdown , it arcs across , and your energy is lost .
But at very tiny scales , current must move as quanta .
So if instead of a single big capacitor , you lithographically print an array of nanoscale capacitors , all of the sudden you can make it so that you essentially ca n't get dielectric breakdown .
In fact , you can store so much energy that the stresses become so great that it 's best to use a carbon nanotube for one of the electrodes in each nano-capacitor .
: ) And even ignoring next-gen battery techs , there is still * huge * range for improvement in li-ion .
In particular , for the cathodes , my favorites are layered manganese cathodes which alternate long-life forms and high energy density forms of magnanese oxides to get both properties ; and fluorinated metal cathodes .
For the anodes , there 's many kinds of tin and particularly silicon anodes out there that store nearly an order of magnitude more lithium than conventional graphite anodes .
Silicon anode li-ion cells are just this month starting to hit the market .
The tech has finally matured to the point where their longevity is sufficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lithium-air is, IMHO, one of the least promising upcoming battery techs.
It's really more like a fuel cell, and to be blunt, fuel cells suck.
By that, I mean:
  * Expensive per watt
  * Short lifespans
  * InefficientThere are many, many promising next-gen battery techs other than li-air.
Here's just a couple of my favorites.Lithium-sulfur: This has long been worked on, but only just recently one of its big problems has been worked around.
It offers great energy density, but some of the intermediary reaction products -- various lithium polysulfides -- are rather soluble.
They'd migrate across the membrane and precipitate out on the other side, being rendered permanently useless to the reaction and thus aging the cells very quickly.
Older solutions to try to prevent this caused dramatically lower energy density.
The latest technique involves wicking the sulfur into the pores of mesoporous carbon and then functionalizing the outside of the carbon with polyethylene glycol to keep the hydrophobic polysulfides inside when they form.
The longevity improvements were amazing, without sacrificing energy density.
We're talking that when they deliberately chose a worst-case solvent, one that's really good at dissolving polysulfides, the traditional Li-S cell lost 96\% of its sulfur in 30 cycles while theirs only lost 25\%.Nickel-lithium: It is, quite literally, a hybrid NiMH/li-ion battery -- a traditional NiMH cathode that can hold a tremendous amount of lithium, and a lithium metal anode (almost obscene anode energy density).
That's normally impossible, since you want to run a NiMH battery with an aqueous electrolyte and your various lithium-based cells with an organic electrolyte.
They do both -- they use a new tech called a LISICON membrane to keep the two different electrolytes apart but allow lithium ions across.
An additional problem with li metal anodes is that dendrites tend to form that rupture the membrane -- but LISICON membranes are a rigid ceramic that resists dendrite damage.Digital quantum battery: This is my favorite, because it comes straight out of left field.
It's really a type of capacitor.
Now, capacitors normally hold a lot less energy than batteries; if the voltage gets too high, you get dielectric breakdown, it arcs across, and your energy is lost.
But at very tiny scales, current must move as quanta.
So if instead of a single big capacitor, you lithographically print an array of nanoscale capacitors, all of the sudden you can make it so that you essentially can't get dielectric breakdown.
In fact, you can store so much energy that the stresses become so great that it's best to use a carbon nanotube for one of the electrodes in each nano-capacitor.
:)And even ignoring next-gen battery techs, there is still *huge* range for improvement in li-ion.
In particular, for the cathodes, my favorites are layered manganese cathodes which alternate long-life forms and high energy density forms of magnanese oxides to get both properties; and fluorinated metal cathodes.
For the anodes, there's many kinds of tin and particularly silicon anodes out there that store nearly an order of magnitude more lithium than conventional graphite anodes.
Silicon anode li-ion cells are just this month starting to hit the market.
The tech has finally matured to the point where their longevity is sufficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927556</id>
	<title>Patents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264596960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, because the DOE is bankrolling their computer time, does that mean the results will not be patent-encumbered?<br>Or are we in for more <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent\_encumbrance\_of\_large\_automotive\_NiMH\_batteries" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">NiMH</a> [wikipedia.org] crap?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , because the DOE is bankrolling their computer time , does that mean the results will not be patent-encumbered ? Or are we in for more NiMH [ wikipedia.org ] crap ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, because the DOE is bankrolling their computer time, does that mean the results will not be patent-encumbered?Or are we in for more NiMH [wikipedia.org] crap?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929292</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>tylernt</author>
	<datestamp>1264610040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm partial to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc-air\_battery#Mechanically\_recharged\_cells" title="wikipedia.org">zinc-air</a> [wikipedia.org], myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm partial to zinc-air [ wikipedia.org ] , myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm partial to zinc-air [wikipedia.org], myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928574</id>
	<title>Re:Gasoline's energy density is a fundamental limi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264603680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Gasoline at 50MJ/kg is pretty much the most dense energy storage possible in this universe excluding nuclear energy.</i></p><p>Not even close.  For example, beryllium blows it away in both volumetric and gravimetric energy density (and hydrogen blows beryllium out of the water in gravimetric comparisons, but sucks at volumetric).  And comparing any of them to nuclear energy is laughable.</p><p><i>This is kind of a fundamental limit as to how much energy can be stored in *any* system using potential energy of the electric field of matter.</i></p><p>No, it isn't.  Nor is beryllium.  Energy doesn't even have to be stored in chemical bonds (see, for example, digital quantum batteries).</p><p><i>You may get 2x better efficiency in an electric motor,</i></p><p>Try 4x in typical driving conditions.</p><p><i>but I can not see how a battery can approach this value.</i></p><p>It doesn't need to.  A motor the size of a watermelon propels the Tesla Roadster from 0-60 in under 4 seconds.  In gasoline cars, the fuel is light and the engine is heavy.  In EVs, the motor is light and the "fuel" (the battery pack) is heavy.  It's a reversed paradigm.  You have to compare the mass and volume of the engine + fuel to the mass and volume of motor + fuel.  And with current battery tech, you'll find that EVs are about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way to matching gasoline cars.  But batteries have increased nearly 5-fold in energy density the past 21 years, and show no signs of stopping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gasoline at 50MJ/kg is pretty much the most dense energy storage possible in this universe excluding nuclear energy.Not even close .
For example , beryllium blows it away in both volumetric and gravimetric energy density ( and hydrogen blows beryllium out of the water in gravimetric comparisons , but sucks at volumetric ) .
And comparing any of them to nuclear energy is laughable.This is kind of a fundamental limit as to how much energy can be stored in * any * system using potential energy of the electric field of matter.No , it is n't .
Nor is beryllium .
Energy does n't even have to be stored in chemical bonds ( see , for example , digital quantum batteries ) .You may get 2x better efficiency in an electric motor,Try 4x in typical driving conditions.but I can not see how a battery can approach this value.It does n't need to .
A motor the size of a watermelon propels the Tesla Roadster from 0-60 in under 4 seconds .
In gasoline cars , the fuel is light and the engine is heavy .
In EVs , the motor is light and the " fuel " ( the battery pack ) is heavy .
It 's a reversed paradigm .
You have to compare the mass and volume of the engine + fuel to the mass and volume of motor + fuel .
And with current battery tech , you 'll find that EVs are about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way to matching gasoline cars .
But batteries have increased nearly 5-fold in energy density the past 21 years , and show no signs of stopping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gasoline at 50MJ/kg is pretty much the most dense energy storage possible in this universe excluding nuclear energy.Not even close.
For example, beryllium blows it away in both volumetric and gravimetric energy density (and hydrogen blows beryllium out of the water in gravimetric comparisons, but sucks at volumetric).
And comparing any of them to nuclear energy is laughable.This is kind of a fundamental limit as to how much energy can be stored in *any* system using potential energy of the electric field of matter.No, it isn't.
Nor is beryllium.
Energy doesn't even have to be stored in chemical bonds (see, for example, digital quantum batteries).You may get 2x better efficiency in an electric motor,Try 4x in typical driving conditions.but I can not see how a battery can approach this value.It doesn't need to.
A motor the size of a watermelon propels the Tesla Roadster from 0-60 in under 4 seconds.
In gasoline cars, the fuel is light and the engine is heavy.
In EVs, the motor is light and the "fuel" (the battery pack) is heavy.
It's a reversed paradigm.
You have to compare the mass and volume of the engine + fuel to the mass and volume of motor + fuel.
And with current battery tech, you'll find that EVs are about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way to matching gasoline cars.
But batteries have increased nearly 5-fold in energy density the past 21 years, and show no signs of stopping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927546</id>
	<title>Charging Stations at Universities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264596840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lithium air eBikes are the way forward. Just need to get the big auto makers to stop seeding negativity towards "hippy geeks" who tend to ride them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lithium air eBikes are the way forward .
Just need to get the big auto makers to stop seeding negativity towards " hippy geeks " who tend to ride them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lithium air eBikes are the way forward.
Just need to get the big auto makers to stop seeding negativity towards "hippy geeks" who tend to ride them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928622</id>
	<title>Re:Gasoline's energy density is a fundamental limi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264603980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue here, is how much of the 50MJ/kg is actually converted into mechanical energy via the combustion process, and how much of it is expelled as waste thermal energy out of the tail pipe, and leaked out of the metal skin of the engine?</p><p>Since an electric engine is not a thermal engine, it does not have to obey carnot efficiency.  Nearly all of the thermal loss comes directly from the resistance of the materials in the battery pack, and in the coil windings and power leads to the motor.</p><p>The pedant will argue that the power plant that generates the power which charges the battery pack is a carnot heat engine (Steam turbine in nuclear plant, Steam turbine in coal plant, with exception of water turbine in hydroelectric.), and thus suffers the carnot efficiency limit, in addition to the compounding losses of resistance in trasmission, charging, and operation (making it always net lower than direct gas combustion.) This however totally ignores solar power(Not a carnot heat engine), Wind power (also not a heat engine, unless you get REALLY pedantic, and say that wind is just a natural thermal imbalance in the atmosphere, and subject to carnot efficiency from the sun's heat, which is really stretching it.), and hydroelectric power (also not a heat engine).  Also, it does not apply the same way to a geothermal plant, despite being a heat engine (Hot steam, geothermal heat source), since the plant does not burn a fuel (compares apples to oranges.</p><p>Thus, the REAL issue is not how much energy is stored in the "fuel", but how much energy in that fuel is actually used to do work. A black hole contains an absurdly high amount of energy per kg, but you cannot get any energy out of it, making it worthless, etc.</p><p>Researching lower resistance + higher capacity + lighter weight battery packs, along with the use of very low resistance/superconductive coil windings would do much to push an electric engine above the maximum efficiency of any heat-based engine, simply by reducing the amount of heat produced, potentially by orders of magnitude.</p><p>That is to say, you don't NEED to carry around 50MJ/kg of energy, if you get better economy out of your storage system:  You can carry more water in a tincan than you can in a 55 gallon barrel with holes poked in the bottom, using the same number of trips.  The reason is because the tincan doesn't leak nearly as much as the 55 gallon drum does.</p><p>THAT is how an electrical motor can beat a heat engine's efficiency. (assuming you arent filling the tincan using leaky 55 gallon drums, of course; using a coal/oil/nuclear power plant to charge the battery defeats the purpose, since the second law demands that you could never beat direct application using indirect application. The transmission system will ALWAYS incur a loss in addition to the losses of the direct generation at the power plant.)</p><p>Thus, what the pedant needs to do is stop thinking in terms of oil being the gold-standard, since that creates circular logic. (If Oil is the gold standard, you can never beat oil.) Instead, you should look at the total effiency as the standard, and aim to beat that. That can actually be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue here , is how much of the 50MJ/kg is actually converted into mechanical energy via the combustion process , and how much of it is expelled as waste thermal energy out of the tail pipe , and leaked out of the metal skin of the engine ? Since an electric engine is not a thermal engine , it does not have to obey carnot efficiency .
Nearly all of the thermal loss comes directly from the resistance of the materials in the battery pack , and in the coil windings and power leads to the motor.The pedant will argue that the power plant that generates the power which charges the battery pack is a carnot heat engine ( Steam turbine in nuclear plant , Steam turbine in coal plant , with exception of water turbine in hydroelectric .
) , and thus suffers the carnot efficiency limit , in addition to the compounding losses of resistance in trasmission , charging , and operation ( making it always net lower than direct gas combustion .
) This however totally ignores solar power ( Not a carnot heat engine ) , Wind power ( also not a heat engine , unless you get REALLY pedantic , and say that wind is just a natural thermal imbalance in the atmosphere , and subject to carnot efficiency from the sun 's heat , which is really stretching it .
) , and hydroelectric power ( also not a heat engine ) .
Also , it does not apply the same way to a geothermal plant , despite being a heat engine ( Hot steam , geothermal heat source ) , since the plant does not burn a fuel ( compares apples to oranges.Thus , the REAL issue is not how much energy is stored in the " fuel " , but how much energy in that fuel is actually used to do work .
A black hole contains an absurdly high amount of energy per kg , but you can not get any energy out of it , making it worthless , etc.Researching lower resistance + higher capacity + lighter weight battery packs , along with the use of very low resistance/superconductive coil windings would do much to push an electric engine above the maximum efficiency of any heat-based engine , simply by reducing the amount of heat produced , potentially by orders of magnitude.That is to say , you do n't NEED to carry around 50MJ/kg of energy , if you get better economy out of your storage system : You can carry more water in a tincan than you can in a 55 gallon barrel with holes poked in the bottom , using the same number of trips .
The reason is because the tincan does n't leak nearly as much as the 55 gallon drum does.THAT is how an electrical motor can beat a heat engine 's efficiency .
( assuming you arent filling the tincan using leaky 55 gallon drums , of course ; using a coal/oil/nuclear power plant to charge the battery defeats the purpose , since the second law demands that you could never beat direct application using indirect application .
The transmission system will ALWAYS incur a loss in addition to the losses of the direct generation at the power plant .
) Thus , what the pedant needs to do is stop thinking in terms of oil being the gold-standard , since that creates circular logic .
( If Oil is the gold standard , you can never beat oil .
) Instead , you should look at the total effiency as the standard , and aim to beat that .
That can actually be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue here, is how much of the 50MJ/kg is actually converted into mechanical energy via the combustion process, and how much of it is expelled as waste thermal energy out of the tail pipe, and leaked out of the metal skin of the engine?Since an electric engine is not a thermal engine, it does not have to obey carnot efficiency.
Nearly all of the thermal loss comes directly from the resistance of the materials in the battery pack, and in the coil windings and power leads to the motor.The pedant will argue that the power plant that generates the power which charges the battery pack is a carnot heat engine (Steam turbine in nuclear plant, Steam turbine in coal plant, with exception of water turbine in hydroelectric.
), and thus suffers the carnot efficiency limit, in addition to the compounding losses of resistance in trasmission, charging, and operation (making it always net lower than direct gas combustion.
) This however totally ignores solar power(Not a carnot heat engine), Wind power (also not a heat engine, unless you get REALLY pedantic, and say that wind is just a natural thermal imbalance in the atmosphere, and subject to carnot efficiency from the sun's heat, which is really stretching it.
), and hydroelectric power (also not a heat engine).
Also, it does not apply the same way to a geothermal plant, despite being a heat engine (Hot steam, geothermal heat source), since the plant does not burn a fuel (compares apples to oranges.Thus, the REAL issue is not how much energy is stored in the "fuel", but how much energy in that fuel is actually used to do work.
A black hole contains an absurdly high amount of energy per kg, but you cannot get any energy out of it, making it worthless, etc.Researching lower resistance + higher capacity + lighter weight battery packs, along with the use of very low resistance/superconductive coil windings would do much to push an electric engine above the maximum efficiency of any heat-based engine, simply by reducing the amount of heat produced, potentially by orders of magnitude.That is to say, you don't NEED to carry around 50MJ/kg of energy, if you get better economy out of your storage system:  You can carry more water in a tincan than you can in a 55 gallon barrel with holes poked in the bottom, using the same number of trips.
The reason is because the tincan doesn't leak nearly as much as the 55 gallon drum does.THAT is how an electrical motor can beat a heat engine's efficiency.
(assuming you arent filling the tincan using leaky 55 gallon drums, of course; using a coal/oil/nuclear power plant to charge the battery defeats the purpose, since the second law demands that you could never beat direct application using indirect application.
The transmission system will ALWAYS incur a loss in addition to the losses of the direct generation at the power plant.
)Thus, what the pedant needs to do is stop thinking in terms of oil being the gold-standard, since that creates circular logic.
(If Oil is the gold standard, you can never beat oil.
) Instead, you should look at the total effiency as the standard, and aim to beat that.
That can actually be done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928448</id>
	<title>Re:Overstated</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1264602600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The person who responded to you first is indeed correct.  It's not about patents; you're mixing up this with the old EV1 debacle.  The Roadster uses 18650-format cobalt/graphite li-ion cells, which are already in mass production.  They did this for obvious reasons; when they started out, the phosphates and spinels that everyone else is now using weren't really available.</p><p>As for fire, which the previous person commented on, each cell is contained within its own can that's designed to isolate failures to just that cell.  It's a pretty complex pack indeed.  Future EVs won't have such a complex pack.  It's doubtful that even the Model S will, even though it's still going to be based on cobalt tech (that's what Tesla has experience with, after all -- and despite all its downsides, it is quite energy dense)</p><p>If you're curious as to how the pack is structured, there are 11 "sheets", each one made of 9 "bricks", and each of those made of 69 cells.  Each of the cells in a brick are wired in parallel.  The failure of one, therefore, has relatively little impact on the performance of the brick.  The bricks and sheets are wired in series.  Each sheet monitors the performance of all of its bricks and does load balancing on them, as well as logging failures.  It's a pretty impressive piece of engineering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The person who responded to you first is indeed correct .
It 's not about patents ; you 're mixing up this with the old EV1 debacle .
The Roadster uses 18650-format cobalt/graphite li-ion cells , which are already in mass production .
They did this for obvious reasons ; when they started out , the phosphates and spinels that everyone else is now using were n't really available.As for fire , which the previous person commented on , each cell is contained within its own can that 's designed to isolate failures to just that cell .
It 's a pretty complex pack indeed .
Future EVs wo n't have such a complex pack .
It 's doubtful that even the Model S will , even though it 's still going to be based on cobalt tech ( that 's what Tesla has experience with , after all -- and despite all its downsides , it is quite energy dense ) If you 're curious as to how the pack is structured , there are 11 " sheets " , each one made of 9 " bricks " , and each of those made of 69 cells .
Each of the cells in a brick are wired in parallel .
The failure of one , therefore , has relatively little impact on the performance of the brick .
The bricks and sheets are wired in series .
Each sheet monitors the performance of all of its bricks and does load balancing on them , as well as logging failures .
It 's a pretty impressive piece of engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The person who responded to you first is indeed correct.
It's not about patents; you're mixing up this with the old EV1 debacle.
The Roadster uses 18650-format cobalt/graphite li-ion cells, which are already in mass production.
They did this for obvious reasons; when they started out, the phosphates and spinels that everyone else is now using weren't really available.As for fire, which the previous person commented on, each cell is contained within its own can that's designed to isolate failures to just that cell.
It's a pretty complex pack indeed.
Future EVs won't have such a complex pack.
It's doubtful that even the Model S will, even though it's still going to be based on cobalt tech (that's what Tesla has experience with, after all -- and despite all its downsides, it is quite energy dense)If you're curious as to how the pack is structured, there are 11 "sheets", each one made of 9 "bricks", and each of those made of 69 cells.
Each of the cells in a brick are wired in parallel.
The failure of one, therefore, has relatively little impact on the performance of the brick.
The bricks and sheets are wired in series.
Each sheet monitors the performance of all of its bricks and does load balancing on them, as well as logging failures.
It's a pretty impressive piece of engineering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928322</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1264601460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're looking to reduce your environment impact, I'd guess that living closer to work will have a much larger effect than buying a different car.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're looking to reduce your environment impact , I 'd guess that living closer to work will have a much larger effect than buying a different car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're looking to reduce your environment impact, I'd guess that living closer to work will have a much larger effect than buying a different car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928400</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>uncreativeslashnick</author>
	<datestamp>1264602060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not really sure what you said, but it sounds pretty awesome</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not really sure what you said , but it sounds pretty awesome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not really sure what you said, but it sounds pretty awesome</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927750</id>
	<title>Fingers Crossed</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1264597980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Energy-dense storage media have been the missing link in a lot of relatively clean energy generation schemes.  For example, both solar and wind power are challenged by the need to store power for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Energy-dense storage media have been the missing link in a lot of relatively clean energy generation schemes .
For example , both solar and wind power are challenged by the need to store power for when the wind is n't blowing and the sun is n't shining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Energy-dense storage media have been the missing link in a lot of relatively clean energy generation schemes.
For example, both solar and wind power are challenged by the need to store power for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30944642</id>
	<title>Re:Gasoline's energy density is a fundamental limi</title>
	<author>Skal Tura</author>
	<datestamp>1264689720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But i doubt an EV will never really replace the feeling of an otto engine, the sounds, the feel of when you hit the power band etc. But i guess that mostly pertains to those who enjoy cars (and motorcycles) beyond the daily commute, or trip to the relatives way up north.</p><p>EV is way better performing however, simpler machine, but i bet even after almost all cars in daily use are EV, people will still race and build regular gas guzzlers.</p><p>As for the feeling, the weaknesses of otto engine probably makes it just that much more fun!</p><p>That being said, i would gladly take immediately a tesla roadster as my daily commute vehicle, no questions asked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But i doubt an EV will never really replace the feeling of an otto engine , the sounds , the feel of when you hit the power band etc .
But i guess that mostly pertains to those who enjoy cars ( and motorcycles ) beyond the daily commute , or trip to the relatives way up north.EV is way better performing however , simpler machine , but i bet even after almost all cars in daily use are EV , people will still race and build regular gas guzzlers.As for the feeling , the weaknesses of otto engine probably makes it just that much more fun ! That being said , i would gladly take immediately a tesla roadster as my daily commute vehicle , no questions asked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But i doubt an EV will never really replace the feeling of an otto engine, the sounds, the feel of when you hit the power band etc.
But i guess that mostly pertains to those who enjoy cars (and motorcycles) beyond the daily commute, or trip to the relatives way up north.EV is way better performing however, simpler machine, but i bet even after almost all cars in daily use are EV, people will still race and build regular gas guzzlers.As for the feeling, the weaknesses of otto engine probably makes it just that much more fun!That being said, i would gladly take immediately a tesla roadster as my daily commute vehicle, no questions asked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928522</id>
	<title>Re:DOE is serious?</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1264603200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"And after the 1.6 billion hours, does the computer self destruct? Just curious"</i>
<br> <br>
Sorry I'm back and I have answers.
<br> <br>
The Oak Ridge "Jaguar" Supercomputer is the World's Fastest, with <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091116204229.htm" title="sciencedaily.com">37,376 six-core AMD processors</a> [sciencedaily.com].  That puts it at 224,256 processors, so those 24 million hours should be done in 107 hours, or a little more than 4 days.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091116204229.htm" title="sciencedaily.com">The 1.6 billion hours comes from the here:</a> [sciencedaily.com]
<i>"....computing facilities at Oak Ridge and Argonne national laboratories will employ a competitive peer review process to allocate researchers 1.6 billion processor hours in 2010."</i>  That works out to be about 297 days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And after the 1.6 billion hours , does the computer self destruct ?
Just curious " Sorry I 'm back and I have answers .
The Oak Ridge " Jaguar " Supercomputer is the World 's Fastest , with 37,376 six-core AMD processors [ sciencedaily.com ] .
That puts it at 224,256 processors , so those 24 million hours should be done in 107 hours , or a little more than 4 days .
The 1.6 billion hours comes from the here : [ sciencedaily.com ] " ....computing facilities at Oak Ridge and Argonne national laboratories will employ a competitive peer review process to allocate researchers 1.6 billion processor hours in 2010 .
" That works out to be about 297 days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And after the 1.6 billion hours, does the computer self destruct?
Just curious"
 
Sorry I'm back and I have answers.
The Oak Ridge "Jaguar" Supercomputer is the World's Fastest, with 37,376 six-core AMD processors [sciencedaily.com].
That puts it at 224,256 processors, so those 24 million hours should be done in 107 hours, or a little more than 4 days.
The 1.6 billion hours comes from the here: [sciencedaily.com]
"....computing facilities at Oak Ridge and Argonne national laboratories will employ a competitive peer review process to allocate researchers 1.6 billion processor hours in 2010.
"  That works out to be about 297 days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929194</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1264609200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Lithium-air is, IMHO, one of the least promising upcoming battery techs.</i></p><p>Uh-huh.  But between this and all the alternatives you mention, which would Michael Jordan endorse?</p><p>That's right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lithium-air is , IMHO , one of the least promising upcoming battery techs.Uh-huh .
But between this and all the alternatives you mention , which would Michael Jordan endorse ? That 's right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lithium-air is, IMHO, one of the least promising upcoming battery techs.Uh-huh.
But between this and all the alternatives you mention, which would Michael Jordan endorse?That's right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928102</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264600200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goodbye gasoline driven cars. Electricity is already much cheaper, all that was needed was a cheap/compact way to store it. Not to mention better energy storage will be a huge boon too so called "green" energy like solar and wind that can't stay "on" all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goodbye gasoline driven cars .
Electricity is already much cheaper , all that was needed was a cheap/compact way to store it .
Not to mention better energy storage will be a huge boon too so called " green " energy like solar and wind that ca n't stay " on " all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goodbye gasoline driven cars.
Electricity is already much cheaper, all that was needed was a cheap/compact way to store it.
Not to mention better energy storage will be a huge boon too so called "green" energy like solar and wind that can't stay "on" all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929500</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1264612620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because this is a game changing technology, if it pans out.</p></div><p>This is only somewhat a game changing technology.

</p><p>The article cited, and virtually every big news outlet (for whatever reason, nefarious or otherwise) always seems to forget Tesla and the other startups that seem to be getting more than the cited "40-100 mile" range.

</p><p>Thus, the reason this is only somewhat game changing is that the "big three" car manufacturers have no interest in using such technologies. If startups can produce cars that already get 300 miles on a charge, then they could have been as well. If these startups like Tesla can produce a more affordable version (like their upcoming Model S and Bluestar) then so could GM, Ford and Chrysler... but again, they have no interest.

</p><p>Interestingly, Tesla has finally gotten a DOE <b>LOAN</b> to go further forward with the Model S... interesting that they had to <b>battle</b> for a <b>LOAN</b> when they already have a working, viable, 300 mile range electric - yet GM, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota and others have been <b>given</b> a ton of money for their (lack of) efforts.

</p><p>So again, this is not really a game changing technology since it is highly doubtful that the big auto makers have any interest in it (for whatever reason) - though hopefully if it works, Tesla will increase their already impressive range from 300 miles to 500 miles...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because this is a game changing technology , if it pans out.This is only somewhat a game changing technology .
The article cited , and virtually every big news outlet ( for whatever reason , nefarious or otherwise ) always seems to forget Tesla and the other startups that seem to be getting more than the cited " 40-100 mile " range .
Thus , the reason this is only somewhat game changing is that the " big three " car manufacturers have no interest in using such technologies .
If startups can produce cars that already get 300 miles on a charge , then they could have been as well .
If these startups like Tesla can produce a more affordable version ( like their upcoming Model S and Bluestar ) then so could GM , Ford and Chrysler... but again , they have no interest .
Interestingly , Tesla has finally gotten a DOE LOAN to go further forward with the Model S... interesting that they had to battle for a LOAN when they already have a working , viable , 300 mile range electric - yet GM , Chrysler , Ford , Toyota and others have been given a ton of money for their ( lack of ) efforts .
So again , this is not really a game changing technology since it is highly doubtful that the big auto makers have any interest in it ( for whatever reason ) - though hopefully if it works , Tesla will increase their already impressive range from 300 miles to 500 miles.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because this is a game changing technology, if it pans out.This is only somewhat a game changing technology.
The article cited, and virtually every big news outlet (for whatever reason, nefarious or otherwise) always seems to forget Tesla and the other startups that seem to be getting more than the cited "40-100 mile" range.
Thus, the reason this is only somewhat game changing is that the "big three" car manufacturers have no interest in using such technologies.
If startups can produce cars that already get 300 miles on a charge, then they could have been as well.
If these startups like Tesla can produce a more affordable version (like their upcoming Model S and Bluestar) then so could GM, Ford and Chrysler... but again, they have no interest.
Interestingly, Tesla has finally gotten a DOE LOAN to go further forward with the Model S... interesting that they had to battle for a LOAN when they already have a working, viable, 300 mile range electric - yet GM, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota and others have been given a ton of money for their (lack of) efforts.
So again, this is not really a game changing technology since it is highly doubtful that the big auto makers have any interest in it (for whatever reason) - though hopefully if it works, Tesla will increase their already impressive range from 300 miles to 500 miles...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928788</id>
	<title>Don't recharge; swap!</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1264605240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difficulty of delivering such a large amount of power in such a short time would be bypassed if the battery packs were designed to be easily swapped in and out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difficulty of delivering such a large amount of power in such a short time would be bypassed if the battery packs were designed to be easily swapped in and out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difficulty of delivering such a large amount of power in such a short time would be bypassed if the battery packs were designed to be easily swapped in and out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927660</id>
	<title>Re:looks like another pinto car</title>
	<author>xQuarkDS9x</author>
	<datestamp>1264597500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes but gasoline is just as highly flammable and yet you don't see too many cars exploding unless they are in serious accidents where the fuel tank or fuel lines are somehow ruptured and there's a fire going to boot to ignite it. I would also imagine once they refine the technology, they could take precautions to prevent explosions as much as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but gasoline is just as highly flammable and yet you do n't see too many cars exploding unless they are in serious accidents where the fuel tank or fuel lines are somehow ruptured and there 's a fire going to boot to ignite it .
I would also imagine once they refine the technology , they could take precautions to prevent explosions as much as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but gasoline is just as highly flammable and yet you don't see too many cars exploding unless they are in serious accidents where the fuel tank or fuel lines are somehow ruptured and there's a fire going to boot to ignite it.
I would also imagine once they refine the technology, they could take precautions to prevent explosions as much as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927706</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>UPZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264597800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it works out, who gets the patents - IBM or US Govt?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it works out , who gets the patents - IBM or US Govt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it works out, who gets the patents - IBM or US Govt?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929300</id>
	<title>Re:absolutely</title>
	<author>gaspar ilom</author>
	<datestamp>1264610220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely a game charger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely a game charger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely a game charger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929776</id>
	<title>Re:Recharge time and price bigger issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264615320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't really know too much about biofuels, it seems. You don't think that biofuels can be produced at the scale required -- no, not true, there's still lots of potential in algae fuels, miscanthus is a win as far as vascular plants go. There's lots being accomplished in the field of cellulosic alcohols. There's more than just ethanol, methanol, and biodiesel - there's butyl alcohol and alkanes, and mixes of these in order to produce compatibility and performance, while keeping cost and emissions low. It's hard to see how biofuels, with their carbohydrates, can be nearly as polluting as the metals you use in these new batteries. Using biofuels takes carbon out of the atmosphere, whereas battery technology does not directly address this issue at all.</p><p>What's needed is a careful evaluation of all the energy solutions presented, and the benefits and drawbacks of each. My guess is that we will see a wide variety of technologies being developed, with some being more popular in some areas than others, for both political and practical reasons.</p><p>Energy storage is a really big problem right now, but not so much on the scale of vehicles as it is in the harnessing of the wind for power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't really know too much about biofuels , it seems .
You do n't think that biofuels can be produced at the scale required -- no , not true , there 's still lots of potential in algae fuels , miscanthus is a win as far as vascular plants go .
There 's lots being accomplished in the field of cellulosic alcohols .
There 's more than just ethanol , methanol , and biodiesel - there 's butyl alcohol and alkanes , and mixes of these in order to produce compatibility and performance , while keeping cost and emissions low .
It 's hard to see how biofuels , with their carbohydrates , can be nearly as polluting as the metals you use in these new batteries .
Using biofuels takes carbon out of the atmosphere , whereas battery technology does not directly address this issue at all.What 's needed is a careful evaluation of all the energy solutions presented , and the benefits and drawbacks of each .
My guess is that we will see a wide variety of technologies being developed , with some being more popular in some areas than others , for both political and practical reasons.Energy storage is a really big problem right now , but not so much on the scale of vehicles as it is in the harnessing of the wind for power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't really know too much about biofuels, it seems.
You don't think that biofuels can be produced at the scale required -- no, not true, there's still lots of potential in algae fuels, miscanthus is a win as far as vascular plants go.
There's lots being accomplished in the field of cellulosic alcohols.
There's more than just ethanol, methanol, and biodiesel - there's butyl alcohol and alkanes, and mixes of these in order to produce compatibility and performance, while keeping cost and emissions low.
It's hard to see how biofuels, with their carbohydrates, can be nearly as polluting as the metals you use in these new batteries.
Using biofuels takes carbon out of the atmosphere, whereas battery technology does not directly address this issue at all.What's needed is a careful evaluation of all the energy solutions presented, and the benefits and drawbacks of each.
My guess is that we will see a wide variety of technologies being developed, with some being more popular in some areas than others, for both political and practical reasons.Energy storage is a really big problem right now, but not so much on the scale of vehicles as it is in the harnessing of the wind for power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927674</id>
	<title>Riding on air and gas-bagging</title>
	<author>gringer</author>
	<datestamp>1264597620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll have none of this airy-fairy stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll have none of this airy-fairy stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll have none of this airy-fairy stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30935776</id>
	<title>Re:I'm holding out for 1000 miles per charge</title>
	<author>Whorhay</author>
	<datestamp>1264701960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the things I'd argue though is that the vast majority of business that gas stations currently do is for people that are driving locally. And if they are just doing local driving then their car would have charged up over night while it was plugged in at their house. So those people won't be taking up space and pump time at gas or recharging stations. The only people that would need to use such stations would be those doing long haul driving trips.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things I 'd argue though is that the vast majority of business that gas stations currently do is for people that are driving locally .
And if they are just doing local driving then their car would have charged up over night while it was plugged in at their house .
So those people wo n't be taking up space and pump time at gas or recharging stations .
The only people that would need to use such stations would be those doing long haul driving trips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things I'd argue though is that the vast majority of business that gas stations currently do is for people that are driving locally.
And if they are just doing local driving then their car would have charged up over night while it was plugged in at their house.
So those people won't be taking up space and pump time at gas or recharging stations.
The only people that would need to use such stations would be those doing long haul driving trips.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30934858</id>
	<title>Re:DOE is serious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lifespan for a supercomputer is about 5 years, so they don't self destruct, but they get old an become relatively inefficient, and when the predominant cost becomes the electricity costs, it doesn't make financial sense to run old machines.</p><p>Also, it is unlikely that they will use all of Jaguar at a single time. They'll probably just run on a couple thousand processors at a time, maybe more if their software can actually use them. Thus they'll use this allocation over a longer time period than just 4 days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lifespan for a supercomputer is about 5 years , so they do n't self destruct , but they get old an become relatively inefficient , and when the predominant cost becomes the electricity costs , it does n't make financial sense to run old machines.Also , it is unlikely that they will use all of Jaguar at a single time .
They 'll probably just run on a couple thousand processors at a time , maybe more if their software can actually use them .
Thus they 'll use this allocation over a longer time period than just 4 days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lifespan for a supercomputer is about 5 years, so they don't self destruct, but they get old an become relatively inefficient, and when the predominant cost becomes the electricity costs, it doesn't make financial sense to run old machines.Also, it is unlikely that they will use all of Jaguar at a single time.
They'll probably just run on a couple thousand processors at a time, maybe more if their software can actually use them.
Thus they'll use this allocation over a longer time period than just 4 days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927978</id>
	<title>Re:looks like another pinto car</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1264599480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no chemist, but there is a difference between a gasoline fire and a Li-Ion battery exothermic reaction. It's all about how much heat/energy is released at any given time. For an extreme example, youtube some videos of thermite. Incredible stuff. I sure hope these Li-O2 batteries don't lean in that direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no chemist , but there is a difference between a gasoline fire and a Li-Ion battery exothermic reaction .
It 's all about how much heat/energy is released at any given time .
For an extreme example , youtube some videos of thermite .
Incredible stuff .
I sure hope these Li-O2 batteries do n't lean in that direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no chemist, but there is a difference between a gasoline fire and a Li-Ion battery exothermic reaction.
It's all about how much heat/energy is released at any given time.
For an extreme example, youtube some videos of thermite.
Incredible stuff.
I sure hope these Li-O2 batteries don't lean in that direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30937374</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please prove all fuel cells will ever suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please prove all fuel cells will ever suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please prove all fuel cells will ever suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928192</id>
	<title>Silly question...</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1264600620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...But what exactly are they planning to accomplish with a supercomputer?  What exactly are they looking for?  Can they somehow brute-force search different models looking for ones that work?</p><p>And why can't they use a cloud instead?  LiAir@Home FTW!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...But what exactly are they planning to accomplish with a supercomputer ?
What exactly are they looking for ?
Can they somehow brute-force search different models looking for ones that work ? And why ca n't they use a cloud instead ?
LiAir @ Home FTW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...But what exactly are they planning to accomplish with a supercomputer?
What exactly are they looking for?
Can they somehow brute-force search different models looking for ones that work?And why can't they use a cloud instead?
LiAir@Home FTW!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931386</id>
	<title>Re:Lithium availability?</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1264678200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't recycle oil (once burned, it's difficult to do anything with the CO2 liberated). However, you can recycle battery packs containing lithium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't recycle oil ( once burned , it 's difficult to do anything with the CO2 liberated ) .
However , you can recycle battery packs containing lithium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't recycle oil (once burned, it's difficult to do anything with the CO2 liberated).
However, you can recycle battery packs containing lithium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927710</id>
	<title>Re:looks like another pinto car</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264597860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; They use highly flammable metals to do this so we will have another round of<br>&gt; explosive cars out on the highways...</p><p>Anything that packs enough energy to run a car 300 miles into the volume of a gas tank is going to be potentially dangerous.  There's no way around it.</p><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and being metals they will require some thought into the use of water to<br>&gt; put the flames out at accidents.</p><p>Whereas water works real well on gasoline fires.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; They use highly flammable metals to do this so we will have another round of &gt; explosive cars out on the highways...Anything that packs enough energy to run a car 300 miles into the volume of a gas tank is going to be potentially dangerous .
There 's no way around it. &gt; ...and being metals they will require some thought into the use of water to &gt; put the flames out at accidents.Whereas water works real well on gasoline fires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; They use highly flammable metals to do this so we will have another round of&gt; explosive cars out on the highways...Anything that packs enough energy to run a car 300 miles into the volume of a gas tank is going to be potentially dangerous.
There's no way around it.&gt; ...and being metals they will require some thought into the use of water to&gt; put the flames out at accidents.Whereas water works real well on gasoline fires.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296</id>
	<title>Gasoline's energy density is a fundamental limit</title>
	<author>viking80</author>
	<datestamp>1264601340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gasoline at 50MJ/kg is pretty much the most dense energy storage possible in this universe excluding nuclear energy. (Hydrogen is 150MJ/kg, and might beat gas, but it needs to be in liquid form. Same range anyway) It exclude the weigh of the oxygen as well.</p><p>This is kind of a fundamental limit as to how much energy can be stored in *any* system using potential energy of the electric field of matter. That includes (nano)springs, batteries and small flywheels (flywheels bigger than the earth with relativistic speed could exceed this limit)</p><p>You may get 2x better efficiency in an electric motor, but I can not see how a battery can approach this value. A gas tank probably weighs 5\% of the fuel it holds, and to build a battery where all infrastructure to support the (very) active material only weighs a few percent of the battery wold be very hard even if you find such a chemistry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gasoline at 50MJ/kg is pretty much the most dense energy storage possible in this universe excluding nuclear energy .
( Hydrogen is 150MJ/kg , and might beat gas , but it needs to be in liquid form .
Same range anyway ) It exclude the weigh of the oxygen as well.This is kind of a fundamental limit as to how much energy can be stored in * any * system using potential energy of the electric field of matter .
That includes ( nano ) springs , batteries and small flywheels ( flywheels bigger than the earth with relativistic speed could exceed this limit ) You may get 2x better efficiency in an electric motor , but I can not see how a battery can approach this value .
A gas tank probably weighs 5 \ % of the fuel it holds , and to build a battery where all infrastructure to support the ( very ) active material only weighs a few percent of the battery wold be very hard even if you find such a chemistry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gasoline at 50MJ/kg is pretty much the most dense energy storage possible in this universe excluding nuclear energy.
(Hydrogen is 150MJ/kg, and might beat gas, but it needs to be in liquid form.
Same range anyway) It exclude the weigh of the oxygen as well.This is kind of a fundamental limit as to how much energy can be stored in *any* system using potential energy of the electric field of matter.
That includes (nano)springs, batteries and small flywheels (flywheels bigger than the earth with relativistic speed could exceed this limit)You may get 2x better efficiency in an electric motor, but I can not see how a battery can approach this value.
A gas tank probably weighs 5\% of the fuel it holds, and to build a battery where all infrastructure to support the (very) active material only weighs a few percent of the battery wold be very hard even if you find such a chemistry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30952092</id>
	<title>Re:Lithium Shortage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264790580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No lithium. Nickel-iron time!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No lithium .
Nickel-iron time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No lithium.
Nickel-iron time!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30930092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928606</id>
	<title>Re:Mining in outerspace?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264603920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Last I heard was lithium was a precious metal...</p><p>You last heard wrong.  It goes for around $100/kg, less than 1/4 the price of silver.</p><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...50\% of the world's sources were in one country (So Am).</p><p>Chile seems to currently have the largest proven reserves, but lithium is not very rare (similar in concentration in the Earth's crust to nickel and lead) and is widely distributed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Last I heard was lithium was a precious metal...You last heard wrong .
It goes for around $ 100/kg , less than 1/4 the price of silver. &gt; ...50 \ % of the world 's sources were in one country ( So Am ) .Chile seems to currently have the largest proven reserves , but lithium is not very rare ( similar in concentration in the Earth 's crust to nickel and lead ) and is widely distributed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Last I heard was lithium was a precious metal...You last heard wrong.
It goes for around $100/kg, less than 1/4 the price of silver.&gt; ...50\% of the world's sources were in one country (So Am).Chile seems to currently have the largest proven reserves, but lithium is not very rare (similar in concentration in the Earth's crust to nickel and lead) and is widely distributed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448</id>
	<title>Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264596360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because this is a game changing technology, if it pans out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because this is a game changing technology , if it pans out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because this is a game changing technology, if it pans out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929936</id>
	<title>We Can Do Better</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264617060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Us open source nuts might be better able to do the needed computing than the big name labs could hope to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Us open source nuts might be better able to do the needed computing than the big name labs could hope to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Us open source nuts might be better able to do the needed computing than the big name labs could hope to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928918</id>
	<title>Re:Gasoline's energy density is a fundamental limi</title>
	<author>rahvin112</author>
	<datestamp>1264606200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gasoline has a lot of energy per volume, no doubt. But an IC engine has a maximum efficiency burning that gasoline of about 40\%, real world efficiency is around 20\%. Electric motors are 90\% real world efficient. Now assuming your 50MJ/kg is correct, all your battery has to do is match 11MJ/kg and it will equal gasoline assuming everything is equal. As noted in another post its not equal, the electric motor weighs almost nothing compared to the IC engine, as a result you need even less energy. According to the article the batteries being researched will be capable of 5.6MJ/kg. That's halfway to the equal comparison. This isn't even considering that cars are designed for 300+ miles per fillup but the average daily use is less than 40milies and the median is less than 20miles.</p><p>Electric energy can propel your car for $0.03 per mile. If gas taxes were taken out (I used my states gas tax, yours could be several cents different either direction), you are paying roughly $2.30 per gallon and if you car gets 35mph per gallon you are paying $0.06 cents per mile, that's HALF the cost.</p><p>There are so many people that don't realize how game changing the Chevy Volt is. Give it a battery pack that can sustain it for equivalent miles to a gas tank (currently it's 40mph on pure electricity with a gasoline generator backup) at the same vehicle weight and the gasoline IC engine will fade into history. This doesn't even factor in how much funner it is to drive a car with electric drive train, the power and torque curve are identical where in an IC engine they are offset significantly. Car and Driver LOVED the Volt and Tesla Roadster because they are a blast to drive and cheaper to drive than a gas car. It's a win-win for everyone if the battery tech advances to the stage that you can get similar miles from battery pack as from gasoline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gasoline has a lot of energy per volume , no doubt .
But an IC engine has a maximum efficiency burning that gasoline of about 40 \ % , real world efficiency is around 20 \ % .
Electric motors are 90 \ % real world efficient .
Now assuming your 50MJ/kg is correct , all your battery has to do is match 11MJ/kg and it will equal gasoline assuming everything is equal .
As noted in another post its not equal , the electric motor weighs almost nothing compared to the IC engine , as a result you need even less energy .
According to the article the batteries being researched will be capable of 5.6MJ/kg .
That 's halfway to the equal comparison .
This is n't even considering that cars are designed for 300 + miles per fillup but the average daily use is less than 40milies and the median is less than 20miles.Electric energy can propel your car for $ 0.03 per mile .
If gas taxes were taken out ( I used my states gas tax , yours could be several cents different either direction ) , you are paying roughly $ 2.30 per gallon and if you car gets 35mph per gallon you are paying $ 0.06 cents per mile , that 's HALF the cost.There are so many people that do n't realize how game changing the Chevy Volt is .
Give it a battery pack that can sustain it for equivalent miles to a gas tank ( currently it 's 40mph on pure electricity with a gasoline generator backup ) at the same vehicle weight and the gasoline IC engine will fade into history .
This does n't even factor in how much funner it is to drive a car with electric drive train , the power and torque curve are identical where in an IC engine they are offset significantly .
Car and Driver LOVED the Volt and Tesla Roadster because they are a blast to drive and cheaper to drive than a gas car .
It 's a win-win for everyone if the battery tech advances to the stage that you can get similar miles from battery pack as from gasoline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gasoline has a lot of energy per volume, no doubt.
But an IC engine has a maximum efficiency burning that gasoline of about 40\%, real world efficiency is around 20\%.
Electric motors are 90\% real world efficient.
Now assuming your 50MJ/kg is correct, all your battery has to do is match 11MJ/kg and it will equal gasoline assuming everything is equal.
As noted in another post its not equal, the electric motor weighs almost nothing compared to the IC engine, as a result you need even less energy.
According to the article the batteries being researched will be capable of 5.6MJ/kg.
That's halfway to the equal comparison.
This isn't even considering that cars are designed for 300+ miles per fillup but the average daily use is less than 40milies and the median is less than 20miles.Electric energy can propel your car for $0.03 per mile.
If gas taxes were taken out (I used my states gas tax, yours could be several cents different either direction), you are paying roughly $2.30 per gallon and if you car gets 35mph per gallon you are paying $0.06 cents per mile, that's HALF the cost.There are so many people that don't realize how game changing the Chevy Volt is.
Give it a battery pack that can sustain it for equivalent miles to a gas tank (currently it's 40mph on pure electricity with a gasoline generator backup) at the same vehicle weight and the gasoline IC engine will fade into history.
This doesn't even factor in how much funner it is to drive a car with electric drive train, the power and torque curve are identical where in an IC engine they are offset significantly.
Car and Driver LOVED the Volt and Tesla Roadster because they are a blast to drive and cheaper to drive than a gas car.
It's a win-win for everyone if the battery tech advances to the stage that you can get similar miles from battery pack as from gasoline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928286</id>
	<title>The Mind Has No Firewall</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264601280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Mind Has No Firewall"<br>Army article on psychotronic weapons</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt; The following article is from the US military publication Parameters, subtitled "US Army War College Quarterly." It describes itself as "The United States Army's Senior Professional Journal." [Click here to read a crucial excerpt.]</p><p> <a href="http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/mind-firewall.htm" title="thememoryhole.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/mind-firewall.htm</a> [thememoryhole.org] </p><p>"The Mind Has No Firewall" by Timothy L. Thomas. Parameters, Spring 1998, pp. 84-92.</p><p> <a href="http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/" title="army.mil" rel="nofollow">http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/</a> [army.mil] </p><p>The human body, much like a computer, contains myriad data processors. They include, but are not limited to, the chemical-electrical activity of the brain, heart, and peripheral nervous system, the signals sent from the cortex region of the brain to other parts of our body, the tiny hair cells in the inner ear that process auditory signals, and the light-sensitive retina and cornea of the eye that process visual activity.[2] We are on the threshold of an era in which these data processors of the human body may be manipulated or debilitated. Examples of unplanned attacks on the body's data-processing capability are well-documented. Strobe lights have been known to cause epileptic seizures. Not long ago in Japan, children watching television cartoons were subjected to pulsating lights that caused seizures in some and made others very sick.</p><p>Defending friendly and targeting adversary data-processing capabilities of the body appears to be an area of weakness in the US approach to information warfare theory, a theory oriented heavily toward systems data-processing and designed to attain information dominance on the battlefield. Or so it would appear from information in the open, unclassified press. This US shortcoming may be a serious one, since the capabilities to alter the data- processing systems of the body already exist. A recent edition of U.S. News and World Report highlighted several of these "wonder weapons" (acoustics, microwaves, lasers) and noted that scientists are "searching the electromagnetic and sonic spectrums for wavelengths that can affect human behavior."[3] A recent Russian military article offered a slightly different slant to the problem, declaring that "humanity stands on the brink of a psychotronic war" with the mind and body as the focus. That article discussed Russian and international attempts to control the psycho-physical condition of man and his decisionmaking processes by the use of VHF-generators, "noiseless cassettes," and other technologies.</p><p>An entirely new arsenal of weapons, based on devices designed to introduce subliminal messages or to alter the body's psychological and data-processing capabilities, might be used to incapacitate individuals. These weapons aim to control or alter the psyche, or to attack the various sensory and data-processing systems of the human organism. In both cases, the goal is to confuse or destroy the signals that normally keep the body in equilibrium.</p><p>This article examines energy-based weapons, psychotronic weapons, and other developments designed to alter the ability of the human body to process stimuli. One consequence of this assessment is that the way we commonly use the term "information warfare" falls short when the individual soldier, not his equipment, becomes the target of attack.</p><p>Information Warfare Theory and the Data-Processing Element of Humans</p><p>In the United States the common conception of information warfare focuses primarily on the capabilities of hardware systems such as computers, satellites, and military equipment which process data in its various forms. According to Department of Defense Directive S-3600.1 of 9 December 1996, information warfare is defined as "an information operation conducted during time of crisis or conflict to achieve or promote specific objectives over a specific adversary or adversaries." An information operation is defined in the same directive as "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Mind Has No Firewall " Army article on psychotronic weapons &gt; &gt; &gt; The following article is from the US military publication Parameters , subtitled " US Army War College Quarterly .
" It describes itself as " The United States Army 's Senior Professional Journal .
" [ Click here to read a crucial excerpt .
] http : //www.thememoryhole.org/mil/mind-firewall.htm [ thememoryhole.org ] " The Mind Has No Firewall " by Timothy L. Thomas. Parameters , Spring 1998 , pp .
84-92. http : //carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/ [ army.mil ] The human body , much like a computer , contains myriad data processors .
They include , but are not limited to , the chemical-electrical activity of the brain , heart , and peripheral nervous system , the signals sent from the cortex region of the brain to other parts of our body , the tiny hair cells in the inner ear that process auditory signals , and the light-sensitive retina and cornea of the eye that process visual activity .
[ 2 ] We are on the threshold of an era in which these data processors of the human body may be manipulated or debilitated .
Examples of unplanned attacks on the body 's data-processing capability are well-documented .
Strobe lights have been known to cause epileptic seizures .
Not long ago in Japan , children watching television cartoons were subjected to pulsating lights that caused seizures in some and made others very sick.Defending friendly and targeting adversary data-processing capabilities of the body appears to be an area of weakness in the US approach to information warfare theory , a theory oriented heavily toward systems data-processing and designed to attain information dominance on the battlefield .
Or so it would appear from information in the open , unclassified press .
This US shortcoming may be a serious one , since the capabilities to alter the data- processing systems of the body already exist .
A recent edition of U.S. News and World Report highlighted several of these " wonder weapons " ( acoustics , microwaves , lasers ) and noted that scientists are " searching the electromagnetic and sonic spectrums for wavelengths that can affect human behavior .
" [ 3 ] A recent Russian military article offered a slightly different slant to the problem , declaring that " humanity stands on the brink of a psychotronic war " with the mind and body as the focus .
That article discussed Russian and international attempts to control the psycho-physical condition of man and his decisionmaking processes by the use of VHF-generators , " noiseless cassettes , " and other technologies.An entirely new arsenal of weapons , based on devices designed to introduce subliminal messages or to alter the body 's psychological and data-processing capabilities , might be used to incapacitate individuals .
These weapons aim to control or alter the psyche , or to attack the various sensory and data-processing systems of the human organism .
In both cases , the goal is to confuse or destroy the signals that normally keep the body in equilibrium.This article examines energy-based weapons , psychotronic weapons , and other developments designed to alter the ability of the human body to process stimuli .
One consequence of this assessment is that the way we commonly use the term " information warfare " falls short when the individual soldier , not his equipment , becomes the target of attack.Information Warfare Theory and the Data-Processing Element of HumansIn the United States the common conception of information warfare focuses primarily on the capabilities of hardware systems such as computers , satellites , and military equipment which process data in its various forms .
According to Department of Defense Directive S-3600.1 of 9 December 1996 , information warfare is defined as " an information operation conducted during time of crisis or conflict to achieve or promote specific objectives over a specific adversary or adversaries .
" An information operation is defined in the same directive as "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Mind Has No Firewall"Army article on psychotronic weapons&gt;&gt;&gt; The following article is from the US military publication Parameters, subtitled "US Army War College Quarterly.
" It describes itself as "The United States Army's Senior Professional Journal.
" [Click here to read a crucial excerpt.
] http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/mind-firewall.htm [thememoryhole.org] "The Mind Has No Firewall" by Timothy L. Thomas. Parameters, Spring 1998, pp.
84-92. http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/ [army.mil] The human body, much like a computer, contains myriad data processors.
They include, but are not limited to, the chemical-electrical activity of the brain, heart, and peripheral nervous system, the signals sent from the cortex region of the brain to other parts of our body, the tiny hair cells in the inner ear that process auditory signals, and the light-sensitive retina and cornea of the eye that process visual activity.
[2] We are on the threshold of an era in which these data processors of the human body may be manipulated or debilitated.
Examples of unplanned attacks on the body's data-processing capability are well-documented.
Strobe lights have been known to cause epileptic seizures.
Not long ago in Japan, children watching television cartoons were subjected to pulsating lights that caused seizures in some and made others very sick.Defending friendly and targeting adversary data-processing capabilities of the body appears to be an area of weakness in the US approach to information warfare theory, a theory oriented heavily toward systems data-processing and designed to attain information dominance on the battlefield.
Or so it would appear from information in the open, unclassified press.
This US shortcoming may be a serious one, since the capabilities to alter the data- processing systems of the body already exist.
A recent edition of U.S. News and World Report highlighted several of these "wonder weapons" (acoustics, microwaves, lasers) and noted that scientists are "searching the electromagnetic and sonic spectrums for wavelengths that can affect human behavior.
"[3] A recent Russian military article offered a slightly different slant to the problem, declaring that "humanity stands on the brink of a psychotronic war" with the mind and body as the focus.
That article discussed Russian and international attempts to control the psycho-physical condition of man and his decisionmaking processes by the use of VHF-generators, "noiseless cassettes," and other technologies.An entirely new arsenal of weapons, based on devices designed to introduce subliminal messages or to alter the body's psychological and data-processing capabilities, might be used to incapacitate individuals.
These weapons aim to control or alter the psyche, or to attack the various sensory and data-processing systems of the human organism.
In both cases, the goal is to confuse or destroy the signals that normally keep the body in equilibrium.This article examines energy-based weapons, psychotronic weapons, and other developments designed to alter the ability of the human body to process stimuli.
One consequence of this assessment is that the way we commonly use the term "information warfare" falls short when the individual soldier, not his equipment, becomes the target of attack.Information Warfare Theory and the Data-Processing Element of HumansIn the United States the common conception of information warfare focuses primarily on the capabilities of hardware systems such as computers, satellites, and military equipment which process data in its various forms.
According to Department of Defense Directive S-3600.1 of 9 December 1996, information warfare is defined as "an information operation conducted during time of crisis or conflict to achieve or promote specific objectives over a specific adversary or adversaries.
" An information operation is defined in the same directive as "</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931324</id>
	<title>Re:Mining in outerspace?</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1264677600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when has South America been a country?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when has South America been a country ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when has South America been a country?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928268</id>
	<title>Re:A new air pollution source?</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1264601160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Anyone get the feeling that airborne lithium will soon be a pollution concern?</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Not really. Lithium is so reactive, you won't find any "airborne lithium". Only lithium oxide. Which will react with the water vapor in the air to produce lithium hydroxide. Which will react with CO2 to produce lithium carbonate which, like most carbonates, is not very soluble. Most of it will precipitate out of solution, and the rest will make us feel less depressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone get the feeling that airborne lithium will soon be a pollution concern ?
      Not really .
Lithium is so reactive , you wo n't find any " airborne lithium " .
Only lithium oxide .
Which will react with the water vapor in the air to produce lithium hydroxide .
Which will react with CO2 to produce lithium carbonate which , like most carbonates , is not very soluble .
Most of it will precipitate out of solution , and the rest will make us feel less depressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone get the feeling that airborne lithium will soon be a pollution concern?
      Not really.
Lithium is so reactive, you won't find any "airborne lithium".
Only lithium oxide.
Which will react with the water vapor in the air to produce lithium hydroxide.
Which will react with CO2 to produce lithium carbonate which, like most carbonates, is not very soluble.
Most of it will precipitate out of solution, and the rest will make us feel less depressed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30932346</id>
	<title>Brainiac alkali fun</title>
	<author>daniel23</author>
	<datestamp>1264689360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCk0lYB\_8c0&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCk0lYB\_8c0&amp;feature=related</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = eCk0lYB \ _8c0&amp;feature = related [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCk0lYB\_8c0&amp;feature=related [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929284</id>
	<title>Re:"...just a matter of time"</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1264609980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if you ignore the worldwide copper shortage...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if you ignore the worldwide copper shortage.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if you ignore the worldwide copper shortage...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30930930</id>
	<title>Lithium Argon?</title>
	<author>deebug497</author>
	<datestamp>1264672980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one prefer the dual Lithium Argon technology. Imagine the commercial pitch on that, the LiAr LiAr car, sounds about right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one prefer the dual Lithium Argon technology .
Imagine the commercial pitch on that , the LiAr LiAr car , sounds about right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one prefer the dual Lithium Argon technology.
Imagine the commercial pitch on that, the LiAr LiAr car, sounds about right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928870</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully not vaporware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264605780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously this guy thinks he is smarter than the hundreds of PhDs in a myriad of disciplines employed by the DOE and IBM.</p><p>If he was half as smart as he thinks he is, he wouldn't have time to post on slashdot because he'd be so busy saving the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously this guy thinks he is smarter than the hundreds of PhDs in a myriad of disciplines employed by the DOE and IBM.If he was half as smart as he thinks he is , he would n't have time to post on slashdot because he 'd be so busy saving the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously this guy thinks he is smarter than the hundreds of PhDs in a myriad of disciplines employed by the DOE and IBM.If he was half as smart as he thinks he is, he wouldn't have time to post on slashdot because he'd be so busy saving the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927538</id>
	<title>sweet</title>
	<author>cooldfish</author>
	<datestamp>1264596840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i see subnotbooks with more than a day runtime comming</htmltext>
<tokenext>i see subnotbooks with more than a day runtime comming</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i see subnotbooks with more than a day runtime comming</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928332</id>
	<title>DOE is serious?</title>
	<author>wealthychef</author>
	<datestamp>1264601580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, besides devoting 0.024/1.6 = 1.5\% of the time on one supercomputer at one national lab on this problem, how else is the DOE serious about this?  And after the 1.6 billion hours, does the computer self destruct?  Just curious.  Science reporters love big numbers, don't they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , besides devoting 0.024/1.6 = 1.5 \ % of the time on one supercomputer at one national lab on this problem , how else is the DOE serious about this ?
And after the 1.6 billion hours , does the computer self destruct ?
Just curious .
Science reporters love big numbers , do n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, besides devoting 0.024/1.6 = 1.5\% of the time on one supercomputer at one national lab on this problem, how else is the DOE serious about this?
And after the 1.6 billion hours, does the computer self destruct?
Just curious.
Science reporters love big numbers, don't they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927556</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30932346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30932942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30952092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30930092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30940252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30933928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30933590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30935254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30930152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30937374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30944642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30933500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30935776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30934858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30947176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30935148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2318247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30940252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30930092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30952092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30933590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928332
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928522
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30932942
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30935254
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30934858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30933928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30933500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30937374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30935148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30930948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30935776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30930152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30944642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30932346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30947176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30928532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30929712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30931386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2318247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2318247.30927604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
