<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_02_2251252</id>
	<title>Harder-Than-Diamond Natural Carbon Crystals Found</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265105280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://z01riemerathotmail.com/" rel="nofollow">HikingStick</a> tips a piece from the science desk at MSNBC.com about a <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35198934/ns/technology\_and\_science-science/">new, naturally occurring form of carbon</a> found in a meteorite fragment. <i>"Researchers were polishing a slice of the carbon-rich Havero meteorite that fell to Earth in Finland in 1971. When they then studied the polished surface they discovered carbon-loaded spots that were raised well above the rest of the surface &mdash; suggesting that these areas were harder than the diamonds used in the polishing paste... [G]raphite layers were shocked and heated enough to create bonds between the layers &mdash; which is exactly how humans manufacture diamonds... [The research] team took the next step and put the diamond-resistant crystals under the scrutiny of some very rigorous mineralogical analyzing instruments to learn how its atoms are lined up. That allowed them to confirm that they had, indeed, found a new 'phase' or polymorph of crystalline carbon as well as a type of diamond that had been predicted to exist decades ago, but had never been found in nature until now."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>HikingStick tips a piece from the science desk at MSNBC.com about a new , naturally occurring form of carbon found in a meteorite fragment .
" Researchers were polishing a slice of the carbon-rich Havero meteorite that fell to Earth in Finland in 1971 .
When they then studied the polished surface they discovered carbon-loaded spots that were raised well above the rest of the surface    suggesting that these areas were harder than the diamonds used in the polishing paste... [ G ] raphite layers were shocked and heated enough to create bonds between the layers    which is exactly how humans manufacture diamonds... [ The research ] team took the next step and put the diamond-resistant crystals under the scrutiny of some very rigorous mineralogical analyzing instruments to learn how its atoms are lined up .
That allowed them to confirm that they had , indeed , found a new 'phase ' or polymorph of crystalline carbon as well as a type of diamond that had been predicted to exist decades ago , but had never been found in nature until now .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HikingStick tips a piece from the science desk at MSNBC.com about a new, naturally occurring form of carbon found in a meteorite fragment.
"Researchers were polishing a slice of the carbon-rich Havero meteorite that fell to Earth in Finland in 1971.
When they then studied the polished surface they discovered carbon-loaded spots that were raised well above the rest of the surface — suggesting that these areas were harder than the diamonds used in the polishing paste... [G]raphite layers were shocked and heated enough to create bonds between the layers — which is exactly how humans manufacture diamonds... [The research] team took the next step and put the diamond-resistant crystals under the scrutiny of some very rigorous mineralogical analyzing instruments to learn how its atoms are lined up.
That allowed them to confirm that they had, indeed, found a new 'phase' or polymorph of crystalline carbon as well as a type of diamond that had been predicted to exist decades ago, but had never been found in nature until now.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009382</id>
	<title>Re:Contradict yourself why don't you...</title>
	<author>Xabraxas</author>
	<datestamp>1264951740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well if it fell from the sky, then it is not in nature now is it...?</p></div></blockquote><p>Space is natural unless you're a bible-thumping redneck.

</p><blockquote><div><p>The story is interesting that we might have a new element on our chart</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm pretty sure carbon was discovered already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if it fell from the sky , then it is not in nature now is it... ? Space is natural unless you 're a bible-thumping redneck .
The story is interesting that we might have a new element on our chartI 'm pretty sure carbon was discovered already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if it fell from the sky, then it is not in nature now is it...?Space is natural unless you're a bible-thumping redneck.
The story is interesting that we might have a new element on our chartI'm pretty sure carbon was discovered already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007958</id>
	<title>Ohhh shinny!</title>
	<author>agentc0re</author>
	<datestamp>1264938540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally, the crystal I needed for my lightsaber!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , the crystal I needed for my lightsaber !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, the crystal I needed for my lightsaber!
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31050766</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265483700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This news and many applications of diamonds were outlined in the show Naked Science: Super Diamonds.</p><p>Check it out here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6zKVlROuBs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This news and many applications of diamonds were outlined in the show Naked Science : Super Diamonds.Check it out here http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = a6zKVlROuBs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This news and many applications of diamonds were outlined in the show Naked Science: Super Diamonds.Check it out here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6zKVlROuBs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31016250</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I don't get...</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1264938600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the past, you could tell artificial diamonds from natural ones because of imperfections, but with today's technology, you can't tell even with a microscope. </p></div><p>You still can, according to my father - a gemologist and certified diamond rater - natural diamonds tend to have minor imperfections, artificially created ones do not.</p><p>Yup, man-made stuff can be better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the past , you could tell artificial diamonds from natural ones because of imperfections , but with today 's technology , you ca n't tell even with a microscope .
You still can , according to my father - a gemologist and certified diamond rater - natural diamonds tend to have minor imperfections , artificially created ones do not.Yup , man-made stuff can be better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the past, you could tell artificial diamonds from natural ones because of imperfections, but with today's technology, you can't tell even with a microscope.
You still can, according to my father - a gemologist and certified diamond rater - natural diamonds tend to have minor imperfections, artificially created ones do not.Yup, man-made stuff can be better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009692</id>
	<title>Re:Mohs Scale of Hardness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I distantly recall an upgraded Mohs scale which rescaled diamond to 15.</p><p>So this mineral goes up to 16.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I distantly recall an upgraded Mohs scale which rescaled diamond to 15.So this mineral goes up to 16 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I distantly recall an upgraded Mohs scale which rescaled diamond to 15.So this mineral goes up to 16.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010274</id>
	<title>Re:something harder than diamonds</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1264955580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hm, I think an experiment involving replacing your lotion with a diamond polishing paste would put the lie to your boast!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm , I think an experiment involving replacing your lotion with a diamond polishing paste would put the lie to your boast !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm, I think an experiment involving replacing your lotion with a diamond polishing paste would put the lie to your boast!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008960</id>
	<title>Re:Slighly confused now</title>
	<author>pohl</author>
	<datestamp>1264949220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>So diamond is no longer the hardest [material] known to man?</i></p><p>It hasn't been for quite some time now, but the myth lives on.   It was the hardest "naturally occurring" material until this discovery, apparently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So diamond is no longer the hardest [ material ] known to man ? It has n't been for quite some time now , but the myth lives on .
It was the hardest " naturally occurring " material until this discovery , apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So diamond is no longer the hardest [material] known to man?It hasn't been for quite some time now, but the myth lives on.
It was the hardest "naturally occurring" material until this discovery, apparently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010604</id>
	<title>Re:How long</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264956900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How long til I can get me a ring of this shit?</p></div><p>It depends on several things but mostly on
</p><ol>
<li>How pretty are you?</li>
<li>Do you put out?</li>
</ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long til I can get me a ring of this shit ? It depends on several things but mostly on How pretty are you ?
Do you put out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long til I can get me a ring of this shit?It depends on several things but mostly on

How pretty are you?
Do you put out?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008782</id>
	<title>Boron nitride is not diamond</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264948020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article: "...artificial ultra-hard diamonds known as lonsdaleite and boron nitride..."</p><p>Boron nitride is, of course, not a form of diamond (lonsdaleite is).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " ...artificial ultra-hard diamonds known as lonsdaleite and boron nitride... " Boron nitride is , of course , not a form of diamond ( lonsdaleite is ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "...artificial ultra-hard diamonds known as lonsdaleite and boron nitride..."Boron nitride is, of course, not a form of diamond (lonsdaleite is).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31011292</id>
	<title>Superdiamond</title>
	<author>Scarbo27</author>
	<datestamp>1264959540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, it's Superdiamond - strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal diamonds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it 's Superdiamond - strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal diamonds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it's Superdiamond - strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal diamonds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008132</id>
	<title>Slighly confused now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264940640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So diamond is no longer the hardest metal known to man?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So diamond is no longer the hardest metal known to man ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So diamond is no longer the hardest metal known to man?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010386</id>
	<title>THIS crystalline carbon has never been found...</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1264956180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the headline was about a musician granting an interview, and the sub-header was "Famous performer never interviewed before", you wouldn't be scoffing "What?  You mean <i>no</i> famous performer has ever been interviewed?  Well I have a thousand back issues of <i>Rolling Stone</i> that would disagree!"</p><p>What they're saying is that they have discovered a crystalline carbon, and it is something never seen in nature before.  The sentence is accurate.</p><p>Yes the truncated verbal style often used in headlines may have made it less clear than it could have been by the simple expedient of adding "This".</p><p>Nevertheless, this is a perfect example of why I find pedantry to be so useless outside of technical fields where precise meanings not only exist but are required.  Because more often than not, pedantry is just a way to <i>fail to understand</i> what is being said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the headline was about a musician granting an interview , and the sub-header was " Famous performer never interviewed before " , you would n't be scoffing " What ?
You mean no famous performer has ever been interviewed ?
Well I have a thousand back issues of Rolling Stone that would disagree !
" What they 're saying is that they have discovered a crystalline carbon , and it is something never seen in nature before .
The sentence is accurate.Yes the truncated verbal style often used in headlines may have made it less clear than it could have been by the simple expedient of adding " This " .Nevertheless , this is a perfect example of why I find pedantry to be so useless outside of technical fields where precise meanings not only exist but are required .
Because more often than not , pedantry is just a way to fail to understand what is being said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the headline was about a musician granting an interview, and the sub-header was "Famous performer never interviewed before", you wouldn't be scoffing "What?
You mean no famous performer has ever been interviewed?
Well I have a thousand back issues of Rolling Stone that would disagree!
"What they're saying is that they have discovered a crystalline carbon, and it is something never seen in nature before.
The sentence is accurate.Yes the truncated verbal style often used in headlines may have made it less clear than it could have been by the simple expedient of adding "This".Nevertheless, this is a perfect example of why I find pedantry to be so useless outside of technical fields where precise meanings not only exist but are required.
Because more often than not, pedantry is just a way to fail to understand what is being said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008178</id>
	<title>Re:Dragonforce</title>
	<author>AmonTheMetalhead</author>
	<datestamp>1264941420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must have limited knowledge of metal then....
Fast != hard</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must have limited knowledge of metal then... . Fast ! = hard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must have limited knowledge of metal then....
Fast != hard</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31011894</id>
	<title>Re:Ohhh shinny!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264961760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ohhh shinny!   Finally, the crystal I needed for my lightsaber!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div></blockquote><p>Or, apparently, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinny" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">your hockey game</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Mayhaps you means <b>shiny</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ohhh shinny !
Finally , the crystal I needed for my lightsaber !
: DOr , apparently , your hockey game [ wikipedia.org ] .Mayhaps you means shiny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ohhh shinny!
Finally, the crystal I needed for my lightsaber!
:DOr, apparently, your hockey game [wikipedia.org].Mayhaps you means shiny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010152</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I don't get...</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1264955100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  Nah, that could never happen.  Us humans are the most powerful force in the universe.  No asteroid passing through a <a href="http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads15/supernova8061254773562.jpg" title="pelicanparts.com">supernova</a> [pelicanparts.com], and then flying through intergalactic space, and finally crashing on the Earth, could possibly go through more stress than say a <a href="http://www.justpressplay.net/images/stories/501px-human.svg.png" title="justpressplay.net">water filled carbon based container</a> [justpressplay.net] at a <a href="http://showclix.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/metallica.jpg" title="showclix.com">Metallica concert</a> [showclix.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , that could never happen .
Us humans are the most powerful force in the universe .
No asteroid passing through a supernova [ pelicanparts.com ] , and then flying through intergalactic space , and finally crashing on the Earth , could possibly go through more stress than say a water filled carbon based container [ justpressplay.net ] at a Metallica concert [ showclix.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Nah, that could never happen.
Us humans are the most powerful force in the universe.
No asteroid passing through a supernova [pelicanparts.com], and then flying through intergalactic space, and finally crashing on the Earth, could possibly go through more stress than say a water filled carbon based container [justpressplay.net] at a Metallica concert [showclix.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010030</id>
	<title>How did it get so hard !!??!!</title>
	<author>Sentrion</author>
	<datestamp>1264954380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the article fails to mention is that no one noticed how hard it was until the hot intern started to polish it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the article fails to mention is that no one noticed how hard it was until the hot intern started to polish it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the article fails to mention is that no one noticed how hard it was until the hot intern started to polish it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007932</id>
	<title>As the saying goes...</title>
	<author>Black Parrot</author>
	<datestamp>1264938240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That allowed them to confirm that they had, indeed, found a new 'phase' or polymorph of crystalline carbon as well as a type of diamond that had been predicted to exist decades ago, but had never been found in nature until now.</p></div><p>"Polymorphs of crystalline carbon are forever."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That allowed them to confirm that they had , indeed , found a new 'phase ' or polymorph of crystalline carbon as well as a type of diamond that had been predicted to exist decades ago , but had never been found in nature until now .
" Polymorphs of crystalline carbon are forever .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That allowed them to confirm that they had, indeed, found a new 'phase' or polymorph of crystalline carbon as well as a type of diamond that had been predicted to exist decades ago, but had never been found in nature until now.
"Polymorphs of crystalline carbon are forever.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008532</id>
	<title>Re:How long</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1264945800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How long til I can get me a ring of this shit?</p></div><p>Why do you call it shit? It comes from a meteorite, not from Uranus!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long til I can get me a ring of this shit ? Why do you call it shit ?
It comes from a meteorite , not from Uranus !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long til I can get me a ring of this shit?Why do you call it shit?
It comes from a meteorite, not from Uranus!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007946</id>
	<title>Sounds like carbonados</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0612-mystery\_diamonds.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0612-mystery \ _diamonds.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0612-mystery\_diamonds.htm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31015084</id>
	<title>It shall be called..</title>
	<author>sea4ever</author>
	<datestamp>1264933740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This new type of diamond shall henceforth be known as 'unobtanium' Hey maybe we can mine this stuff..</htmltext>
<tokenext>This new type of diamond shall henceforth be known as 'unobtanium ' Hey maybe we can mine this stuff. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This new type of diamond shall henceforth be known as 'unobtanium' Hey maybe we can mine this stuff..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31013666</id>
	<title>Re:Another way to make harder than normal diamonds</title>
	<author>sdpuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1264969440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would agree that C13 diamonds should be harder than C12 (or mix of isotopes) due to stronger chemical bonds- C13 is heavier than C12, more energy is required to break bonds.
<p>
But if you compare rate of reaction (which should have some bearing on bond cleavage) - difference there is 1.04\% - so perhaps increase in hardness should be somewhere in that range (4\%?)
</p><p>
C14 would have even stronger bonds, but since it is radioactive it'll eventually decay leaving defects in the crystal structure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would agree that C13 diamonds should be harder than C12 ( or mix of isotopes ) due to stronger chemical bonds- C13 is heavier than C12 , more energy is required to break bonds .
But if you compare rate of reaction ( which should have some bearing on bond cleavage ) - difference there is 1.04 \ % - so perhaps increase in hardness should be somewhere in that range ( 4 \ % ?
) C14 would have even stronger bonds , but since it is radioactive it 'll eventually decay leaving defects in the crystal structure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would agree that C13 diamonds should be harder than C12 (or mix of isotopes) due to stronger chemical bonds- C13 is heavier than C12, more energy is required to break bonds.
But if you compare rate of reaction (which should have some bearing on bond cleavage) - difference there is 1.04\% - so perhaps increase in hardness should be somewhere in that range (4\%?
)

C14 would have even stronger bonds, but since it is radioactive it'll eventually decay leaving defects in the crystal structure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008434</id>
	<title>Re:Mohs Scale of Hardness</title>
	<author>Pharmboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264944840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The actual hardness may actually be a 10.5 or 10.7 or 12.  My guess is that they won't arbitrarily call this new structure 11 simply because it is harder than a 10.  There may yet be even harder structures, or structures harder than diamond but softer than this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual hardness may actually be a 10.5 or 10.7 or 12 .
My guess is that they wo n't arbitrarily call this new structure 11 simply because it is harder than a 10 .
There may yet be even harder structures , or structures harder than diamond but softer than this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual hardness may actually be a 10.5 or 10.7 or 12.
My guess is that they won't arbitrarily call this new structure 11 simply because it is harder than a 10.
There may yet be even harder structures, or structures harder than diamond but softer than this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008972</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>MistrX</author>
	<datestamp>1264949220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dilithium cristals! Yeah! Woohoo!</p><p>Now where is that matter-antimatter reaction we need?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dilithium cristals !
Yeah ! Woohoo ! Now where is that matter-antimatter reaction we need ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dilithium cristals!
Yeah! Woohoo!Now where is that matter-antimatter reaction we need?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009966</id>
	<title>Journal Article</title>
	<author>Drache Kubisuro</author>
	<datestamp>1264954080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those that are interested in considering scientific paper without the media filter:</p><p>
Ferroir, Tristan, Leonid Dubrovinsky, Ahmed El Goresy, Alexandre Simionovici, Tomoki Nakamura, and Philippe Gillet. 2010. <i>Carbon polymorphism in shocked meteorites: Evidence for new natural ultrahard phases</i>. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 290, no. 1-2: 150-154. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.12.015. <a href="http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0012821X09007389" title="elsevier.com" rel="nofollow">http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0012821X09007389</a> [elsevier.com].
</p><p>
I sure wish that secondary sources properly cited primary sources, even if they are only interviewing the main scientist involved. Giving the journal name and date as Discovery News did is a good step, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those that are interested in considering scientific paper without the media filter : Ferroir , Tristan , Leonid Dubrovinsky , Ahmed El Goresy , Alexandre Simionovici , Tomoki Nakamura , and Philippe Gillet .
2010. Carbon polymorphism in shocked meteorites : Evidence for new natural ultrahard phases .
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 290 , no .
1-2 : 150-154. doi : 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.12.015. http : //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0012821X09007389 [ elsevier.com ] .
I sure wish that secondary sources properly cited primary sources , even if they are only interviewing the main scientist involved .
Giving the journal name and date as Discovery News did is a good step , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those that are interested in considering scientific paper without the media filter:
Ferroir, Tristan, Leonid Dubrovinsky, Ahmed El Goresy, Alexandre Simionovici, Tomoki Nakamura, and Philippe Gillet.
2010. Carbon polymorphism in shocked meteorites: Evidence for new natural ultrahard phases.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 290, no.
1-2: 150-154. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.12.015. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0012821X09007389 [elsevier.com].
I sure wish that secondary sources properly cited primary sources, even if they are only interviewing the main scientist involved.
Giving the journal name and date as Discovery News did is a good step, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009774</id>
	<title>fundamentally underinformed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"suggesting that these areas were harder than the diamonds used in the polishing paste" is a fundamental misunderstanding and not the basis for a popularist msnbc "harder than diamonds" conjecture.  if regions stand proud, it simply means they're harder than the substrate, not that they're particularly hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" suggesting that these areas were harder than the diamonds used in the polishing paste " is a fundamental misunderstanding and not the basis for a popularist msnbc " harder than diamonds " conjecture .
if regions stand proud , it simply means they 're harder than the substrate , not that they 're particularly hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"suggesting that these areas were harder than the diamonds used in the polishing paste" is a fundamental misunderstanding and not the basis for a popularist msnbc "harder than diamonds" conjecture.
if regions stand proud, it simply means they're harder than the substrate, not that they're particularly hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31021744</id>
	<title>[G]raphite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265296200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honest question here:  What does putting the first letter in brackets mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honest question here : What does putting the first letter in brackets mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honest question here:  What does putting the first letter in brackets mean?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008496</id>
	<title>Londsaleite or not?</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1264945560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  If the substance they found in the meteorite is indeed harder than
carbon, then it probably isn't Londsaleite, as Londsaleites only
as a Moh hardness of 7 to 8, where Diamond is 10 on the Moh scale.
Shocked graphite with bonds between the layers certainly sounds a lot like
Londsaleite though, but that wouldn't be a new form of Carbon.
Apparently a theoretically perfect <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonsdaleite" title="wikipedia.org">Lonsdaletite</a> [wikipedia.org] crystal
would be 58\% harder than diamond, but why would the meteorite crystal be likely to have a near perfect structure.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Materials\%20Science/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Materials Science</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the substance they found in the meteorite is indeed harder than carbon , then it probably is n't Londsaleite , as Londsaleites only as a Moh hardness of 7 to 8 , where Diamond is 10 on the Moh scale .
Shocked graphite with bonds between the layers certainly sounds a lot like Londsaleite though , but that would n't be a new form of Carbon .
Apparently a theoretically perfect Lonsdaletite [ wikipedia.org ] crystal would be 58 \ % harder than diamond , but why would the meteorite crystal be likely to have a near perfect structure .
--- Materials Science [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  If the substance they found in the meteorite is indeed harder than
carbon, then it probably isn't Londsaleite, as Londsaleites only
as a Moh hardness of 7 to 8, where Diamond is 10 on the Moh scale.
Shocked graphite with bonds between the layers certainly sounds a lot like
Londsaleite though, but that wouldn't be a new form of Carbon.
Apparently a theoretically perfect Lonsdaletite [wikipedia.org] crystal
would be 58\% harder than diamond, but why would the meteorite crystal be likely to have a near perfect structure.
---

Materials Science [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008874</id>
	<title>Contradict yourself why don't you...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264948560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Researchers were polishing a slice of the carbon-rich Havero meteorite that fell to Earth in Finland in 1971<br>then...<br>&gt;but had never been found in nature until now<br>Well if it fell from the sky, then it is not in nature now is it...?<br>The story is interesting that we might have a new element on our chart or that we may have new improved harder cutting instruments<br>however, I still think that if we find something in the sense that it came from outer space and fell down to earth, that we should call it what it is, NOT NATURAL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Researchers were polishing a slice of the carbon-rich Havero meteorite that fell to Earth in Finland in 1971then... &gt; but had never been found in nature until nowWell if it fell from the sky , then it is not in nature now is it... ? The story is interesting that we might have a new element on our chart or that we may have new improved harder cutting instrumentshowever , I still think that if we find something in the sense that it came from outer space and fell down to earth , that we should call it what it is , NOT NATURAL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Researchers were polishing a slice of the carbon-rich Havero meteorite that fell to Earth in Finland in 1971then...&gt;but had never been found in nature until nowWell if it fell from the sky, then it is not in nature now is it...?The story is interesting that we might have a new element on our chart or that we may have new improved harder cutting instrumentshowever, I still think that if we find something in the sense that it came from outer space and fell down to earth, that we should call it what it is, NOT NATURAL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007954</id>
	<title>Mohs Scale of Hardness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now it goes all the way to 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now it goes all the way to 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now it goes all the way to 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009122</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I don't get...</title>
	<author>dziban303</author>
	<datestamp>1264950180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once again the news media gets something very basic very wrong. From TFA's headline:<blockquote><div><p>Crystalline carbon has never been found in nature until now</p></div></blockquote><p>Uhm, what do you think a fucking diamond is? Chopped liver? No. Chicken dinner? No. Random collections of carbon atoms in no particular order? No. It's a crystal. Of carbon. Crystalline carbon.

</p><p>BUT WAIT!! -- There's more! What about pencil lead!? Wow-it, too, is a form of cabon? In a crystal lattice?

</p><p>Idiot science reporters should go back to covering the MTV music awards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again the news media gets something very basic very wrong .
From TFA 's headline : Crystalline carbon has never been found in nature until nowUhm , what do you think a fucking diamond is ?
Chopped liver ?
No. Chicken dinner ?
No. Random collections of carbon atoms in no particular order ?
No. It 's a crystal .
Of carbon .
Crystalline carbon .
BUT WAIT ! !
-- There 's more !
What about pencil lead ! ?
Wow-it , too , is a form of cabon ?
In a crystal lattice ?
Idiot science reporters should go back to covering the MTV music awards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again the news media gets something very basic very wrong.
From TFA's headline:Crystalline carbon has never been found in nature until nowUhm, what do you think a fucking diamond is?
Chopped liver?
No. Chicken dinner?
No. Random collections of carbon atoms in no particular order?
No. It's a crystal.
Of carbon.
Crystalline carbon.
BUT WAIT!!
-- There's more!
What about pencil lead!?
Wow-it, too, is a form of cabon?
In a crystal lattice?
Idiot science reporters should go back to covering the MTV music awards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31014192</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I don't get...</title>
	<author>Wardish</author>
	<datestamp>1264929000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Idiot science reporters should go back to covering the MTV music awards."</p><p>And have them fscking up music as wel...   Oh, you said MTV, nevermind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Idiot science reporters should go back to covering the MTV music awards .
" And have them fscking up music as wel... Oh , you said MTV , nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Idiot science reporters should go back to covering the MTV music awards.
"And have them fscking up music as wel...   Oh, you said MTV, nevermind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010008</id>
	<title>paywall</title>
	<author>Drache Kubisuro</author>
	<datestamp>1264954320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to warn, however, that if you do not have access to the journal Earth &amp; Planetary Science Letters on your campus, organization, or local library, you will hit a pay-wall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to warn , however , that if you do not have access to the journal Earth &amp; Planetary Science Letters on your campus , organization , or local library , you will hit a pay-wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to warn, however, that if you do not have access to the journal Earth &amp; Planetary Science Letters on your campus, organization, or local library, you will hit a pay-wall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010770</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I don't get...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264957560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its a Diamond Jim</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a Diamond Jim</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a Diamond Jim</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008970</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I don't get...</title>
	<author>berwiki</author>
	<datestamp>1264949220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no idea where you are getting that from.  Sounds like some 1970s flub.<br> <br>In the past, you could tell artificial diamonds from natural ones because of imperfections, but with today's technology, you can't tell even with a microscope.

<br> <br>Get some up to date info buddy!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea where you are getting that from .
Sounds like some 1970s flub .
In the past , you could tell artificial diamonds from natural ones because of imperfections , but with today 's technology , you ca n't tell even with a microscope .
Get some up to date info buddy !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea where you are getting that from.
Sounds like some 1970s flub.
In the past, you could tell artificial diamonds from natural ones because of imperfections, but with today's technology, you can't tell even with a microscope.
Get some up to date info buddy!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31016552</id>
	<title>Re:As the saying goes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264940280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you know... that diamond is actually an excited state of carbon. It will eventually decay to graphite, which, to my knowledge, is the lowest energy form of carbon.  So, really, "the lead in your pencil is forever" would be more accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you know... that diamond is actually an excited state of carbon .
It will eventually decay to graphite , which , to my knowledge , is the lowest energy form of carbon .
So , really , " the lead in your pencil is forever " would be more accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you know... that diamond is actually an excited state of carbon.
It will eventually decay to graphite, which, to my knowledge, is the lowest energy form of carbon.
So, really, "the lead in your pencil is forever" would be more accurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31012724</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I don't get...</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1264965060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Uhm, what do you think a fucking diamond is? Chopped liver?</p></div><p>Well, no... when you put it like that...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , what do you think a fucking diamond is ?
Chopped liver ? Well , no... when you put it like that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, what do you think a fucking diamond is?
Chopped liver?Well, no... when you put it like that...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010014</id>
	<title>Where can I find a knob that goes to 11?</title>
	<author>NotQuiteReal</author>
	<datestamp>1264954320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I need to make a minor adjustment to my Mohs scale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I need to make a minor adjustment to my Mohs scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I need to make a minor adjustment to my Mohs scale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008886</id>
	<title>Simple explination</title>
	<author>Rooked\_One</author>
	<datestamp>1264948620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since there is no such thing harder than diamonds on earth, and we cannot create anything harder, then it must have been aliens who sent us the meteorite with a substance so hard that it would... <br> <br>1- Make it to us through space<br> <br>2-have encoded within it their history<br> <br> 3- then to be lost when we started grinding away on the bloody thing.<br> <br>-tom cruise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since there is no such thing harder than diamonds on earth , and we can not create anything harder , then it must have been aliens who sent us the meteorite with a substance so hard that it would... 1- Make it to us through space 2-have encoded within it their history 3- then to be lost when we started grinding away on the bloody thing .
-tom cruise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since there is no such thing harder than diamonds on earth, and we cannot create anything harder, then it must have been aliens who sent us the meteorite with a substance so hard that it would...  1- Make it to us through space 2-have encoded within it their history  3- then to be lost when we started grinding away on the bloody thing.
-tom cruise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007952</id>
	<title>The remnants of my empire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And so a remnance of my empire once vast and impenetrable falls from the sky. Damn you Flash Gordon. Eventually I will get off this rock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And so a remnance of my empire once vast and impenetrable falls from the sky .
Damn you Flash Gordon .
Eventually I will get off this rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And so a remnance of my empire once vast and impenetrable falls from the sky.
Damn you Flash Gordon.
Eventually I will get off this rock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008052</id>
	<title>I don't know about you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264939800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but "naturally occurring" and "found in a meteorite fragment" tend to be mutually exclusive terms in my book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but " naturally occurring " and " found in a meteorite fragment " tend to be mutually exclusive terms in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but "naturally occurring" and "found in a meteorite fragment" tend to be mutually exclusive terms in my book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934</id>
	<title>One thing I don't get...</title>
	<author>Looce</author>
	<datestamp>1265114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is why human-made diamonds, made the same way as that carbon-rich rock was discovered, are <b>not</b> harder than natural diamonds - at least, the summary seems to imply this. If it's graphite in both cases, then shouldn't both be harder than diamonds?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is why human-made diamonds , made the same way as that carbon-rich rock was discovered , are not harder than natural diamonds - at least , the summary seems to imply this .
If it 's graphite in both cases , then should n't both be harder than diamonds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is why human-made diamonds, made the same way as that carbon-rich rock was discovered, are not harder than natural diamonds - at least, the summary seems to imply this.
If it's graphite in both cases, then shouldn't both be harder than diamonds?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008250</id>
	<title>Re:Mohs Scale of Hardness</title>
	<author>WGFCrafty</author>
	<datestamp>1264942200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well since diamonds were used as the reference on the scale, being the "hardest" of everything known. Yes, either the scale should go to 11, or diamonds should be lowered. The scale seems to be pretty arbitrary though, just what scratches what.
<br> <br>
According to the wiki article:<p><div class="quote"><p>Since the invention of the scale, there have been reports of materials harder than the highest mineral on the scale, diamonds; so the Mohs scale may be changed in the future.</p></div><p>
And the reference is:<br>

<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6923/full/421599b.html" title="nature.com">T. Irifune, A Kurio, S. Sakamoto, T. Inoue, H. Sumiya "Ultrahard polycrystalline diamond from graphite" Nature 421 (2003) 599</a> [nature.com]
<br> <br>
A big <b>meh</b> to this slashdot story.
<br> <br>
Nature summary:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Polycrystalline diamonds are harder and tougher than single-crystal diamonds and are therefore valuable for cutting and polishing other hard materials, but naturally occurring polycrystalline diamond is unusual and its production is slow. Here we describe the rapid synthesis of pure sintered polycrystalline diamond by direct conversion of graphite under static high pressure and temperature. Surprisingly, this synthesized diamond is ultrahard and so could be useful in the manufacture of scientific and industrial tools.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well since diamonds were used as the reference on the scale , being the " hardest " of everything known .
Yes , either the scale should go to 11 , or diamonds should be lowered .
The scale seems to be pretty arbitrary though , just what scratches what .
According to the wiki article : Since the invention of the scale , there have been reports of materials harder than the highest mineral on the scale , diamonds ; so the Mohs scale may be changed in the future .
And the reference is : T. Irifune , A Kurio , S. Sakamoto , T. Inoue , H. Sumiya " Ultrahard polycrystalline diamond from graphite " Nature 421 ( 2003 ) 599 [ nature.com ] A big meh to this slashdot story .
Nature summary : Polycrystalline diamonds are harder and tougher than single-crystal diamonds and are therefore valuable for cutting and polishing other hard materials , but naturally occurring polycrystalline diamond is unusual and its production is slow .
Here we describe the rapid synthesis of pure sintered polycrystalline diamond by direct conversion of graphite under static high pressure and temperature .
Surprisingly , this synthesized diamond is ultrahard and so could be useful in the manufacture of scientific and industrial tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well since diamonds were used as the reference on the scale, being the "hardest" of everything known.
Yes, either the scale should go to 11, or diamonds should be lowered.
The scale seems to be pretty arbitrary though, just what scratches what.
According to the wiki article:Since the invention of the scale, there have been reports of materials harder than the highest mineral on the scale, diamonds; so the Mohs scale may be changed in the future.
And the reference is:

T. Irifune, A Kurio, S. Sakamoto, T. Inoue, H. Sumiya "Ultrahard polycrystalline diamond from graphite" Nature 421 (2003) 599 [nature.com]
 
A big meh to this slashdot story.
Nature summary:Polycrystalline diamonds are harder and tougher than single-crystal diamonds and are therefore valuable for cutting and polishing other hard materials, but naturally occurring polycrystalline diamond is unusual and its production is slow.
Here we describe the rapid synthesis of pure sintered polycrystalline diamond by direct conversion of graphite under static high pressure and temperature.
Surprisingly, this synthesized diamond is ultrahard and so could be useful in the manufacture of scientific and industrial tools.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31019474</id>
	<title>Re:Mohs Scale of Hardness</title>
	<author>bantab</author>
	<datestamp>1264966920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't you just make ten harder and make ten be the top number and make that a little harder?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you just make ten harder and make ten be the top number and make that a little harder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you just make ten harder and make ten be the top number and make that a little harder?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008890</id>
	<title>Re:Londsaleite or not?</title>
	<author>pspahn</author>
	<datestamp>1264948680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>but why would the meteorite crystal be likely to have a near perfect structure.</i>
<br> <br>
Becaaaaaaause.... it's sciency and natural and stuff. Man still marvels at how cool a little robotic dog is, yet completely takes for granted stuff like the human heart and it's absurdly complex level of bioengineering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but why would the meteorite crystal be likely to have a near perfect structure .
Becaaaaaaause.... it 's sciency and natural and stuff .
Man still marvels at how cool a little robotic dog is , yet completely takes for granted stuff like the human heart and it 's absurdly complex level of bioengineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but why would the meteorite crystal be likely to have a near perfect structure.
Becaaaaaaause.... it's sciency and natural and stuff.
Man still marvels at how cool a little robotic dog is, yet completely takes for granted stuff like the human heart and it's absurdly complex level of bioengineering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31013080</id>
	<title>Re:Contradict yourself why don't you...</title>
	<author>Lithdren</author>
	<datestamp>1264966860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you mean, not natural?  It was created in, it sounds like, a supernova explosion.  The stuff was produced by natural forces.  Its not man-made, and unless some aliens got bored and blew up a star, its not made by anyone else either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean , not natural ?
It was created in , it sounds like , a supernova explosion .
The stuff was produced by natural forces .
Its not man-made , and unless some aliens got bored and blew up a star , its not made by anyone else either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean, not natural?
It was created in, it sounds like, a supernova explosion.
The stuff was produced by natural forces.
Its not man-made, and unless some aliens got bored and blew up a star, its not made by anyone else either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007820</id>
	<title>I hate to sound suspicious, but...</title>
	<author>PiAndWhippedCream</author>
	<datestamp>1264936980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pics or it didn't happen.

I'll take smiles, but I won't like it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pics or it did n't happen .
I 'll take smiles , but I wo n't like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pics or it didn't happen.
I'll take smiles, but I won't like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007834</id>
	<title>How long</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long til I can get me a ring of this shit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long til I can get me a ring of this shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long til I can get me a ring of this shit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007974</id>
	<title>Dragonforce</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it harder than Dragonforce? The hardest metal known to man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it harder than Dragonforce ?
The hardest metal known to man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it harder than Dragonforce?
The hardest metal known to man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008482</id>
	<title>What about bb's?</title>
	<author>gaelfx</author>
	<datestamp>1264945440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, I realize that the article is talking about a crystalline structure for carbon, so buckyballs clearly don't really figure into this directly, but I wonder if you could break a buckyball on one of these new-fangled space diamonds they seem so happy about. Whatever the case may be, at least Kobe can still take a step up from his previous apology to his wife. Better get back to cheating as quick as possible!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I realize that the article is talking about a crystalline structure for carbon , so buckyballs clearly do n't really figure into this directly , but I wonder if you could break a buckyball on one of these new-fangled space diamonds they seem so happy about .
Whatever the case may be , at least Kobe can still take a step up from his previous apology to his wife .
Better get back to cheating as quick as possible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I realize that the article is talking about a crystalline structure for carbon, so buckyballs clearly don't really figure into this directly, but I wonder if you could break a buckyball on one of these new-fangled space diamonds they seem so happy about.
Whatever the case may be, at least Kobe can still take a step up from his previous apology to his wife.
Better get back to cheating as quick as possible!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007950</id>
	<title>Who said it's from nature?</title>
	<author>m.alessandrini</author>
	<datestamp>1264938420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a remote possibility that it was not nature to create that structure...</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a remote possibility that it was not nature to create that structure.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a remote possibility that it was not nature to create that structure...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31016366</id>
	<title>Re:Mohs Scale of Hardness</title>
	<author>Quirkz</author>
	<datestamp>1264939200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you! I loaded the comments for this article specifically hoping to find this joke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you !
I loaded the comments for this article specifically hoping to find this joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you!
I loaded the comments for this article specifically hoping to find this joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010016</id>
	<title>link to orign article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264954320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>found here<br>
<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6V61-4Y4XCTH-3&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_coverDate=02\%2F15\%2F2010&amp;\_rdoc=18&amp;\_fmt=high&amp;\_orig=browse&amp;\_srch=doc-info(\%23toc\%235801\%232010\%23997099998\%231609118\%23FLA\%23display\%23Volume)&amp;\_cdi=5801&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;\_ct=26&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=ae24ceb289eae1dcc9bc6870f3192dc2" title="sciencedirect.com">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6V61-4Y4XCTH-3&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_coverDate=02\%2F15\%2F2010&amp;\_rdoc=18&amp;\_fmt=high&amp;\_orig=browse&amp;\_srch=doc-info(\%23toc\%235801\%232010\%23997099998\%231609118\%23FLA\%23display\%23Volume)&amp;\_cdi=5801&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;\_ct=26&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=ae24ceb289eae1dcc9bc6870f3192dc2</a> [sciencedirect.com]
<br>
And this is the abstract
A slice of the Haver&#246; meteorite which belongs to the ureilite class known to contain graphite and diamond was cut and then polished as a thin section using a diamond paste. We identified two carbonaceous areas which were standing out by more than 10 m in relief over the surface of the silicate matrix suggesting that the carbonaceous phases were not easily polishable by a diamond paste and would therefore imply larger polishing hardness. These areas were investigated by reflected light microscopy, high-resolution Field Emission SEM (FESEM), energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis, Raman spectroscopy, and were subsequently extracted for in situ synchrotron microbeam X-ray fluorescence (XRF), imaging and X-ray diffraction (XRD). We report here the natural occurrences of one new ultrahard rhombohedral carbon polymorph of the R3m space group which structure is very close to diamond but with a partial occupancy of some of the carbon sites. We also report the natural occurrence of the theoretically predicted 21R diamond polytype with lattice parameters very close to what has been modelized. These findings are of great interests for better understanding the world of carbon polymorphs and diamond polytypes giving new natural materials to investigate. These natural samples demonstrate that the carbon system is even more complex than what is currently thought based on ab initio static lattice calculations and high-pressure experiments since this new ultrahard polymorph has never been predicted nor synthesized.</htmltext>
<tokenext>found here http : //www.sciencedirect.com/science ? \ _ob = ArticleURL&amp; \ _udi = B6V61-4Y4XCTH-3&amp; \ _user = 10&amp; \ _coverDate = 02 \ % 2F15 \ % 2F2010&amp; \ _rdoc = 18&amp; \ _fmt = high&amp; \ _orig = browse&amp; \ _srch = doc-info ( \ % 23toc \ % 235801 \ % 232010 \ % 23997099998 \ % 231609118 \ % 23FLA \ % 23display \ % 23Volume ) &amp; \ _cdi = 5801&amp; \ _sort = d&amp; \ _docanchor = &amp; \ _ct = 26&amp; \ _acct = C000050221&amp; \ _version = 1&amp; \ _urlVersion = 0&amp; \ _userid = 10&amp;md5 = ae24ceb289eae1dcc9bc6870f3192dc2 [ sciencedirect.com ] And this is the abstract A slice of the Haver   meteorite which belongs to the ureilite class known to contain graphite and diamond was cut and then polished as a thin section using a diamond paste .
We identified two carbonaceous areas which were standing out by more than 10 m in relief over the surface of the silicate matrix suggesting that the carbonaceous phases were not easily polishable by a diamond paste and would therefore imply larger polishing hardness .
These areas were investigated by reflected light microscopy , high-resolution Field Emission SEM ( FESEM ) , energy-dispersive X-ray ( EDX ) analysis , Raman spectroscopy , and were subsequently extracted for in situ synchrotron microbeam X-ray fluorescence ( XRF ) , imaging and X-ray diffraction ( XRD ) .
We report here the natural occurrences of one new ultrahard rhombohedral carbon polymorph of the R3m space group which structure is very close to diamond but with a partial occupancy of some of the carbon sites .
We also report the natural occurrence of the theoretically predicted 21R diamond polytype with lattice parameters very close to what has been modelized .
These findings are of great interests for better understanding the world of carbon polymorphs and diamond polytypes giving new natural materials to investigate .
These natural samples demonstrate that the carbon system is even more complex than what is currently thought based on ab initio static lattice calculations and high-pressure experiments since this new ultrahard polymorph has never been predicted nor synthesized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>found here
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6V61-4Y4XCTH-3&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_coverDate=02\%2F15\%2F2010&amp;\_rdoc=18&amp;\_fmt=high&amp;\_orig=browse&amp;\_srch=doc-info(\%23toc\%235801\%232010\%23997099998\%231609118\%23FLA\%23display\%23Volume)&amp;\_cdi=5801&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;\_ct=26&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=ae24ceb289eae1dcc9bc6870f3192dc2 [sciencedirect.com]

And this is the abstract
A slice of the Haverö meteorite which belongs to the ureilite class known to contain graphite and diamond was cut and then polished as a thin section using a diamond paste.
We identified two carbonaceous areas which were standing out by more than 10 m in relief over the surface of the silicate matrix suggesting that the carbonaceous phases were not easily polishable by a diamond paste and would therefore imply larger polishing hardness.
These areas were investigated by reflected light microscopy, high-resolution Field Emission SEM (FESEM), energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis, Raman spectroscopy, and were subsequently extracted for in situ synchrotron microbeam X-ray fluorescence (XRF), imaging and X-ray diffraction (XRD).
We report here the natural occurrences of one new ultrahard rhombohedral carbon polymorph of the R3m space group which structure is very close to diamond but with a partial occupancy of some of the carbon sites.
We also report the natural occurrence of the theoretically predicted 21R diamond polytype with lattice parameters very close to what has been modelized.
These findings are of great interests for better understanding the world of carbon polymorphs and diamond polytypes giving new natural materials to investigate.
These natural samples demonstrate that the carbon system is even more complex than what is currently thought based on ab initio static lattice calculations and high-pressure experiments since this new ultrahard polymorph has never been predicted nor synthesized.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008212</id>
	<title>Lonsdaleite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article mentions hexagonal diamond (lonsdaleite) as an artificial form of diamond, which it is with a very interesting low energy formation method, but it was first found in nature in the Canyon Diablo Meteorite in 1967. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonsdaleite" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonsdaleite</a> [wikipedia.org]  Pure lonsdaleite should be harder than regular diamond.  I wish the article has said a little more about the crystal structure the researchers had found.  That the energy required to make lonsdalite is low has interesting implications since the quantity needed to replace structural steel  needs only about 1/280 of the energy needed to make the steel.  <a href="http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/anaximenes-way.html" title="blogspot.com">http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/anaximenes-way.html</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions hexagonal diamond ( lonsdaleite ) as an artificial form of diamond , which it is with a very interesting low energy formation method , but it was first found in nature in the Canyon Diablo Meteorite in 1967. http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonsdaleite [ wikipedia.org ] Pure lonsdaleite should be harder than regular diamond .
I wish the article has said a little more about the crystal structure the researchers had found .
That the energy required to make lonsdalite is low has interesting implications since the quantity needed to replace structural steel needs only about 1/280 of the energy needed to make the steel .
http : //mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/anaximenes-way.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article mentions hexagonal diamond (lonsdaleite) as an artificial form of diamond, which it is with a very interesting low energy formation method, but it was first found in nature in the Canyon Diablo Meteorite in 1967. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonsdaleite [wikipedia.org]  Pure lonsdaleite should be harder than regular diamond.
I wish the article has said a little more about the crystal structure the researchers had found.
That the energy required to make lonsdalite is low has interesting implications since the quantity needed to replace structural steel  needs only about 1/280 of the energy needed to make the steel.
http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/anaximenes-way.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31018560</id>
	<title>Re:THIS crystalline carbon has never been found...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264955400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A failure to understand is equivalent to a failure to communicate.</p><p>They're two sides of the same coin, whether it's the information sender not using the correct words, or it's the information receiver not understanding the words.</p><p>Even though pedantry may be annoying to you, bear in mind that what you may find pedantic others may find useful.  After all, it's you who is categorizing what others say as pedantic (I'm assuming you're using the following definition -- a slavish attention to rules or detail).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A failure to understand is equivalent to a failure to communicate.They 're two sides of the same coin , whether it 's the information sender not using the correct words , or it 's the information receiver not understanding the words.Even though pedantry may be annoying to you , bear in mind that what you may find pedantic others may find useful .
After all , it 's you who is categorizing what others say as pedantic ( I 'm assuming you 're using the following definition -- a slavish attention to rules or detail ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A failure to understand is equivalent to a failure to communicate.They're two sides of the same coin, whether it's the information sender not using the correct words, or it's the information receiver not understanding the words.Even though pedantry may be annoying to you, bear in mind that what you may find pedantic others may find useful.
After all, it's you who is categorizing what others say as pedantic (I'm assuming you're using the following definition -- a slavish attention to rules or detail).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010878</id>
	<title>Re:Another way to make harder than normal diamonds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264957980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would adding a neutron change the bond strength?  Or does it somehow change the bond distance so the whole crystal is uniform?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would adding a neutron change the bond strength ?
Or does it somehow change the bond distance so the whole crystal is uniform ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would adding a neutron change the bond strength?
Or does it somehow change the bond distance so the whole crystal is uniform?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31032646</id>
	<title>Re:[G]raphite</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1265366040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Honest question here: What does putting the first letter in brackets mean?</p></div></blockquote><p>In this context, probably that the original context of the quote used "graphite", but for grammatical reasons in this sentence it needs a capital letter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honest question here : What does putting the first letter in brackets mean ? In this context , probably that the original context of the quote used " graphite " , but for grammatical reasons in this sentence it needs a capital letter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honest question here: What does putting the first letter in brackets mean?In this context, probably that the original context of the quote used "graphite", but for grammatical reasons in this sentence it needs a capital letter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31021744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008478</id>
	<title>Re:Dragonforce</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264945380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on whether you're an arthritic pensioner playing Guitar Hero on Expert or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on whether you 're an arthritic pensioner playing Guitar Hero on Expert or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on whether you're an arthritic pensioner playing Guitar Hero on Expert or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31017570</id>
	<title>Re:link to orign article</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1264946640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for the reference. If I understand "ultrahard rhombohedral carbon polymorph of the R3m space group which structure is very close to diamond but with a partial occupancy of some of the carbon sites" correctly, they are saying that a flawed structure ("partial occupancy") is harder than a perfect structure. Wild.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the reference .
If I understand " ultrahard rhombohedral carbon polymorph of the R3m space group which structure is very close to diamond but with a partial occupancy of some of the carbon sites " correctly , they are saying that a flawed structure ( " partial occupancy " ) is harder than a perfect structure .
Wild .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the reference.
If I understand "ultrahard rhombohedral carbon polymorph of the R3m space group which structure is very close to diamond but with a partial occupancy of some of the carbon sites" correctly, they are saying that a flawed structure ("partial occupancy") is harder than a perfect structure.
Wild.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31012942</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I don't get...</title>
	<author>orgelspieler</author>
	<datestamp>1264966260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Uhm, what do you think a fucking diamond is?</p></div><p>
I don't know, is that code for "engagement ring"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , what do you think a fucking diamond is ?
I do n't know , is that code for " engagement ring " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, what do you think a fucking diamond is?
I don't know, is that code for "engagement ring"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008336</id>
	<title>Another way to make harder than normal diamonds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264943460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>One can also make diamonds harder by isolating and using heavier isotopes. A diamond of purified carbon-13 is harder than a mix of 12,13,14. Man-made diamonds can actually be harder than naturally occurring ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One can also make diamonds harder by isolating and using heavier isotopes .
A diamond of purified carbon-13 is harder than a mix of 12,13,14 .
Man-made diamonds can actually be harder than naturally occurring ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can also make diamonds harder by isolating and using heavier isotopes.
A diamond of purified carbon-13 is harder than a mix of 12,13,14.
Man-made diamonds can actually be harder than naturally occurring ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008008</id>
	<title>Old news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264939320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RPGers around the world had known this for years: a meteorite sword is better than a diamond sword.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RPGers around the world had known this for years : a meteorite sword is better than a diamond sword .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RPGers around the world had known this for years: a meteorite sword is better than a diamond sword.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007780</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I don't get...</title>
	<author>RobVB</author>
	<datestamp>1264936500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps these crystals were shocked and heated more or in another way than human-made diamonds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps these crystals were shocked and heated more or in another way than human-made diamonds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps these crystals were shocked and heated more or in another way than human-made diamonds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008166</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I don't get...</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1264941180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... not harder than natural diamonds.</p></div><p>That is because what they are (or should be) talking about is <b>not</b> hardness, but mechanical strength. Black diamonds are not harder, but because they consist of microscopic crystals, they don't have the convenient break lines of monocrystals, and therefore are more difficult to process. See:</p><p><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0612-mystery\_diamonds.htm" title="sciencedaily.com">http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0612-mystery\_diamonds.htm</a> [sciencedaily.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... not harder than natural diamonds.That is because what they are ( or should be ) talking about is not hardness , but mechanical strength .
Black diamonds are not harder , but because they consist of microscopic crystals , they do n't have the convenient break lines of monocrystals , and therefore are more difficult to process .
See : http : //www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0612-mystery \ _diamonds.htm [ sciencedaily.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... not harder than natural diamonds.That is because what they are (or should be) talking about is not hardness, but mechanical strength.
Black diamonds are not harder, but because they consist of microscopic crystals, they don't have the convenient break lines of monocrystals, and therefore are more difficult to process.
See:http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0612-mystery\_diamonds.htm [sciencedaily.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31030828</id>
	<title>pot meet kettle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265302980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1535482&amp;cid=31014056" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow"> I'll assume by your silence you concede all points.</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll assume by your silence you concede all points .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'll assume by your silence you concede all points.
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31021744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007840</id>
	<title>something harder than diamonds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my dick is harder than diamonds when i look at pictures of sexy asian chicks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my dick is harder than diamonds when i look at pictures of sexy asian chicks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my dick is harder than diamonds when i look at pictures of sexy asian chicks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31017570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31014192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31032646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31021744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31016552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31019474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31016366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31013666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31011894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31012942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31016250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31018560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31030828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31021744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31012724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31013080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2251252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31019474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31016366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31013080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31017570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31013666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31021744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31032646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31030828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31011894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31016552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31002934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31016250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31007780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31009122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010386
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31018560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31012724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31014192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31012942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31010770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2251252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2251252.31008052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
