<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_22_1358226</id>
	<title>Junctionless Transistor Could Simplify Chip Making</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1266851760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"A <a href="http://www.eetimes.com/223100050">novel transistor architecture</a> has been developed by a team of researchers led by Jean-Pierre Colinge at Tyndall National Institute at Cork, Ireland. Not many technology developments can be truly described as 'a breakthrough' or "revolutionary' but this might just fit the bill. It does depend on the extremely small dimensions of silicon nanowires just a few dozens of atoms wide.  <em>EE Times</em>  picked up on an announcement of a paper on the topic being published by <em>Nature Nanotechnology</em>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " A novel transistor architecture has been developed by a team of researchers led by Jean-Pierre Colinge at Tyndall National Institute at Cork , Ireland .
Not many technology developments can be truly described as 'a breakthrough ' or " revolutionary ' but this might just fit the bill .
It does depend on the extremely small dimensions of silicon nanowires just a few dozens of atoms wide .
EE Times picked up on an announcement of a paper on the topic being published by Nature Nanotechnology .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "A novel transistor architecture has been developed by a team of researchers led by Jean-Pierre Colinge at Tyndall National Institute at Cork, Ireland.
Not many technology developments can be truly described as 'a breakthrough' or "revolutionary' but this might just fit the bill.
It does depend on the extremely small dimensions of silicon nanowires just a few dozens of atoms wide.
EE Times  picked up on an announcement of a paper on the topic being published by Nature Nanotechnology.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266856440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Virtually ideal transistors that are easy to fabricate will revolutionize the nanoprocessor industry.</p></div><p>I didn't see anything that suggested fabrication would be easy.  In fact the article mentions that e-beam lithography was used.

If e-beam lithography is a neccessary component then you won't see this in the mainstream anytime soon.  The process is slow.  So slow it is never used for industrial applications.  That said, it is used in acidemia all the time because nothing allows you to get build smaller structures.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtually ideal transistors that are easy to fabricate will revolutionize the nanoprocessor industry.I did n't see anything that suggested fabrication would be easy .
In fact the article mentions that e-beam lithography was used .
If e-beam lithography is a neccessary component then you wo n't see this in the mainstream anytime soon .
The process is slow .
So slow it is never used for industrial applications .
That said , it is used in acidemia all the time because nothing allows you to get build smaller structures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtually ideal transistors that are easy to fabricate will revolutionize the nanoprocessor industry.I didn't see anything that suggested fabrication would be easy.
In fact the article mentions that e-beam lithography was used.
If e-beam lithography is a neccessary component then you won't see this in the mainstream anytime soon.
The process is slow.
So slow it is never used for industrial applications.
That said, it is used in acidemia all the time because nothing allows you to get build smaller structures.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229960</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1266857820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. I'm going to have so much fun telling all the skeptics I told you so. Technology is exploding faster than anyone realizes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I 'm going to have so much fun telling all the skeptics I told you so .
Technology is exploding faster than anyone realizes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I'm going to have so much fun telling all the skeptics I told you so.
Technology is exploding faster than anyone realizes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232732</id>
	<title>Re:Proof Read Much?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1266866700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't flamebait, this is a valid criticism.  However, it's not the article submitter's fault, the stupid error appears in the article itself.  This is what modern journalism has fallen to these days; there's no proofreading at all.  You'd think a simple grammar checker like many word processors have would eliminate this problem.</p><p>On my local paper's website, they let the readers do their proofreading for them in the comments section.  It's just pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't flamebait , this is a valid criticism .
However , it 's not the article submitter 's fault , the stupid error appears in the article itself .
This is what modern journalism has fallen to these days ; there 's no proofreading at all .
You 'd think a simple grammar checker like many word processors have would eliminate this problem.On my local paper 's website , they let the readers do their proofreading for them in the comments section .
It 's just pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't flamebait, this is a valid criticism.
However, it's not the article submitter's fault, the stupid error appears in the article itself.
This is what modern journalism has fallen to these days; there's no proofreading at all.
You'd think a simple grammar checker like many word processors have would eliminate this problem.On my local paper's website, they let the readers do their proofreading for them in the comments section.
It's just pathetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229786</id>
	<title>Re:Proof Read Much?</title>
	<author>Nutria</author>
	<datestamp>1266856920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Proof Read Much?</i></p><p>Proofread much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proof Read Much ? Proofread much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proof Read Much?Proofread much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31233512</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1266869520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this.</p></div></blockquote><p>...that you still have to interact with by "typing" with your thumbs.</p><p>PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS!</p><p>Itty-bitty interface.</p><p>(With insincere apologies to Disney.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this .
I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this....that you still have to interact with by " typing " with your thumbs.PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS ! Itty-bitty interface .
( With insincere apologies to Disney .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this.
I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this....that you still have to interact with by "typing" with your thumbs.PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS!Itty-bitty interface.
(With insincere apologies to Disney.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229834</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>who knows my name</author>
	<datestamp>1266857100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>meh, nanowires have been around for ages. Great, they've found a nice way of gating it, but really that's it. This is just a press release...<br>When they find a way of doing this without e-beam then it might be useful in industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>meh , nanowires have been around for ages .
Great , they 've found a nice way of gating it , but really that 's it .
This is just a press release...When they find a way of doing this without e-beam then it might be useful in industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>meh, nanowires have been around for ages.
Great, they've found a nice way of gating it, but really that's it.
This is just a press release...When they find a way of doing this without e-beam then it might be useful in industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230126</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1266858900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now <b>we will can run Crysis!!</b> wooot!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we will can run Crysis ! !
wooot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we will can run Crysis!!
wooot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232670</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1266866520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Move to a country with almost 100\% coverage and stop complaining.

</p><p>I'll sell you a phone like that for &pound;20. BNIB. 30 day contract. No ID needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Move to a country with almost 100 \ % coverage and stop complaining .
I 'll sell you a phone like that for   20 .
BNIB. 30 day contract .
No ID needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Move to a country with almost 100\% coverage and stop complaining.
I'll sell you a phone like that for £20.
BNIB. 30 day contract.
No ID needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31234620</id>
	<title>Re:Proof Read Much?</title>
	<author>jcwayne</author>
	<datestamp>1266829740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just because we have consciousness does not mean we get to proclaim ourselves superior to and ungoverned by nature.</p></div><p>Actually, it does.  It just doesn't make it true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because we have consciousness does not mean we get to proclaim ourselves superior to and ungoverned by nature.Actually , it does .
It just does n't make it true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because we have consciousness does not mean we get to proclaim ourselves superior to and ungoverned by nature.Actually, it does.
It just doesn't make it true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229758</id>
	<title>Progress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266856740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're one step closer to getting a flux capacitor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're one step closer to getting a flux capacitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're one step closer to getting a flux capacitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31234310</id>
	<title>Wedding ring</title>
	<author>Froboz23</author>
	<datestamp>1266872040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTA:<blockquote><div><p> <b>Control gate like wedding ring</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>

I can assure you from personal experience that a wedding ring does operate like a control gate structure.<br> <br>

If this device works as described, this is a huge breakthrough.  But the devil is in the details.  Hopefully it can be reliably manufactured.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : Control gate like wedding ring I can assure you from personal experience that a wedding ring does operate like a control gate structure .
If this device works as described , this is a huge breakthrough .
But the devil is in the details .
Hopefully it can be reliably manufactured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: Control gate like wedding ring 

I can assure you from personal experience that a wedding ring does operate like a control gate structure.
If this device works as described, this is a huge breakthrough.
But the devil is in the details.
Hopefully it can be reliably manufactured.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31252090</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>holmstar</author>
	<datestamp>1266925980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that is supposed to just magically happen?  This breakthrough will likely be one of the things that makes your statement possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that is supposed to just magically happen ?
This breakthrough will likely be one of the things that makes your statement possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that is supposed to just magically happen?
This breakthrough will likely be one of the things that makes your statement possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31234324</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1266872100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I didn't see anything that suggested fabrication would be easy.</p></div><p>
What about this part from TFA?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>These structures are easy to fabricate even on a miniature scale which leads to the major breakthrough in potential cost reduction</p></div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Just sayin'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't see anything that suggested fabrication would be easy .
What about this part from TFA ? These structures are easy to fabricate even on a miniature scale which leads to the major breakthrough in potential cost reduction ... Just sayin ' .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't see anything that suggested fabrication would be easy.
What about this part from TFA?These structures are easy to fabricate even on a miniature scale which leads to the major breakthrough in potential cost reduction ... Just sayin' ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31236952</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>mr\_mischief</author>
	<datestamp>1266836700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they are easier, as the article actually says they should be, to manufacture, then hopefully yields will be higher. Time not spent making parts for the bin could then be used for extra litho time if necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are easier , as the article actually says they should be , to manufacture , then hopefully yields will be higher .
Time not spent making parts for the bin could then be used for extra litho time if necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are easier, as the article actually says they should be, to manufacture, then hopefully yields will be higher.
Time not spent making parts for the bin could then be used for extra litho time if necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31237930</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266840720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Light is instant? Someone needs to tell Einstein.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Light is instant ?
Someone needs to tell Einstein .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Light is instant?
Someone needs to tell Einstein.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232212</id>
	<title>Uh, CMOS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266865080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found the title to be strange. 99.99\% of electronics today, analog and digital, is built with CMOS devices, which are junctionless. The CMOS device gate is a bit of metal, separated from a strip of silicon by glass. The electric field from voltage on the gate constricts the flow of electrons in the silicon. Sounds just like what they are describing, just different materials?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found the title to be strange .
99.99 \ % of electronics today , analog and digital , is built with CMOS devices , which are junctionless .
The CMOS device gate is a bit of metal , separated from a strip of silicon by glass .
The electric field from voltage on the gate constricts the flow of electrons in the silicon .
Sounds just like what they are describing , just different materials ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found the title to be strange.
99.99\% of electronics today, analog and digital, is built with CMOS devices, which are junctionless.
The CMOS device gate is a bit of metal, separated from a strip of silicon by glass.
The electric field from voltage on the gate constricts the flow of electrons in the silicon.
Sounds just like what they are describing, just different materials?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266856260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this.</i>
<br>
<br>
I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this .
I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this.
I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232294</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266865260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too many divergent threads with faulty assumptions to respond to each individually, and obviously many of you did not bother to read beyond the summary, if that. <br> <br>
 Just because your iPhone has a 600MHz processor does not make it equivalent to a 10 year old computer. It is not running a fully functional operating system, does not have the same capabilities as a desktop system of that era even in sheer number crunching capabilities, and if your portable device attempted such, it would quickly drain the batteries due to inefficient components that lose a significant portion of their energy to current leakage and heat dissipation, while at the same time overheating the components themselves to a point of failure.  Try using you iPhone to render high polygon count 3D models and see how it performs.  Besides these simple points, there were distinct leaps in production technology that allow this <i>approximation</i> of performance to even occur.  More efficient chip based transistors being a primary factor of not needing a large cooling system attached to the back of your phone to allow your display to show you video at a decent framerate<br> <br>
A virtually ideal component is one that is almost 100\% efficient, with little to no leakage and heat loss.  With the reduction in waste heat, more components can be in close proximity to one another without interfering in their operation by skewing values due to heating.  This new design is much faster than a traditional transistor, requires much less energy to bias, and is easy to manufacture.<br> <br>
From the <b>second</b> page of the article:<p><div class="quote"><p>"The current flows in a very thin silicon wire and the flow of current is perfectly controlled by a `wedding ring` structure that electrically squeezes the silicon wire in the same way that you might stop the flow of water in a hose by squeezing it. These structures are easy to fabricate even on a miniature scale which leads to the major breakthrough in potential cost reduction," explained Professor Colinge.</p></div><p>This squeezing is a biasing voltage, and no actual current flow through the gate is required, only a potential.  Since there is no valence junction to bias before current can flow from source to drain, you do not need to supply signals of sufficient voltage to be registered, again requiring much less energy to operate.
<br> <br>
Cost reduction is another key benefit of this technology, rather than having to grow the silicates with an inaccurate doping method over a preformed substrate, which leads to inefficiencies in power consumption and the need for large transition zones due to no two junction type semiconductors having the exact same biasing voltages, which is why standard CMOS is off at 0.8V or lower, and generally on at 2.0V or higher, depending on tolerance.  Transistors using less power to transition from one state to the other require less powerful power supplies, enabling even more compact designs, and to top it off, the technology is robust enough to directly interface with CMOS.
<br> <br>
I realize it takes more than a cursory knowledge of electronics to understand the true implications of this, which is why a number of you have made incorrect assumptions, but with a bit of extra reading, I firmly believe that at least some of you could become as excited about this breakthrough as I am.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too many divergent threads with faulty assumptions to respond to each individually , and obviously many of you did not bother to read beyond the summary , if that .
Just because your iPhone has a 600MHz processor does not make it equivalent to a 10 year old computer .
It is not running a fully functional operating system , does not have the same capabilities as a desktop system of that era even in sheer number crunching capabilities , and if your portable device attempted such , it would quickly drain the batteries due to inefficient components that lose a significant portion of their energy to current leakage and heat dissipation , while at the same time overheating the components themselves to a point of failure .
Try using you iPhone to render high polygon count 3D models and see how it performs .
Besides these simple points , there were distinct leaps in production technology that allow this approximation of performance to even occur .
More efficient chip based transistors being a primary factor of not needing a large cooling system attached to the back of your phone to allow your display to show you video at a decent framerate A virtually ideal component is one that is almost 100 \ % efficient , with little to no leakage and heat loss .
With the reduction in waste heat , more components can be in close proximity to one another without interfering in their operation by skewing values due to heating .
This new design is much faster than a traditional transistor , requires much less energy to bias , and is easy to manufacture .
From the second page of the article : " The current flows in a very thin silicon wire and the flow of current is perfectly controlled by a ` wedding ring ` structure that electrically squeezes the silicon wire in the same way that you might stop the flow of water in a hose by squeezing it .
These structures are easy to fabricate even on a miniature scale which leads to the major breakthrough in potential cost reduction , " explained Professor Colinge.This squeezing is a biasing voltage , and no actual current flow through the gate is required , only a potential .
Since there is no valence junction to bias before current can flow from source to drain , you do not need to supply signals of sufficient voltage to be registered , again requiring much less energy to operate .
Cost reduction is another key benefit of this technology , rather than having to grow the silicates with an inaccurate doping method over a preformed substrate , which leads to inefficiencies in power consumption and the need for large transition zones due to no two junction type semiconductors having the exact same biasing voltages , which is why standard CMOS is off at 0.8V or lower , and generally on at 2.0V or higher , depending on tolerance .
Transistors using less power to transition from one state to the other require less powerful power supplies , enabling even more compact designs , and to top it off , the technology is robust enough to directly interface with CMOS .
I realize it takes more than a cursory knowledge of electronics to understand the true implications of this , which is why a number of you have made incorrect assumptions , but with a bit of extra reading , I firmly believe that at least some of you could become as excited about this breakthrough as I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too many divergent threads with faulty assumptions to respond to each individually, and obviously many of you did not bother to read beyond the summary, if that.
Just because your iPhone has a 600MHz processor does not make it equivalent to a 10 year old computer.
It is not running a fully functional operating system, does not have the same capabilities as a desktop system of that era even in sheer number crunching capabilities, and if your portable device attempted such, it would quickly drain the batteries due to inefficient components that lose a significant portion of their energy to current leakage and heat dissipation, while at the same time overheating the components themselves to a point of failure.
Try using you iPhone to render high polygon count 3D models and see how it performs.
Besides these simple points, there were distinct leaps in production technology that allow this approximation of performance to even occur.
More efficient chip based transistors being a primary factor of not needing a large cooling system attached to the back of your phone to allow your display to show you video at a decent framerate 
A virtually ideal component is one that is almost 100\% efficient, with little to no leakage and heat loss.
With the reduction in waste heat, more components can be in close proximity to one another without interfering in their operation by skewing values due to heating.
This new design is much faster than a traditional transistor, requires much less energy to bias, and is easy to manufacture.
From the second page of the article:"The current flows in a very thin silicon wire and the flow of current is perfectly controlled by a `wedding ring` structure that electrically squeezes the silicon wire in the same way that you might stop the flow of water in a hose by squeezing it.
These structures are easy to fabricate even on a miniature scale which leads to the major breakthrough in potential cost reduction," explained Professor Colinge.This squeezing is a biasing voltage, and no actual current flow through the gate is required, only a potential.
Since there is no valence junction to bias before current can flow from source to drain, you do not need to supply signals of sufficient voltage to be registered, again requiring much less energy to operate.
Cost reduction is another key benefit of this technology, rather than having to grow the silicates with an inaccurate doping method over a preformed substrate, which leads to inefficiencies in power consumption and the need for large transition zones due to no two junction type semiconductors having the exact same biasing voltages, which is why standard CMOS is off at 0.8V or lower, and generally on at 2.0V or higher, depending on tolerance.
Transistors using less power to transition from one state to the other require less powerful power supplies, enabling even more compact designs, and to top it off, the technology is robust enough to directly interface with CMOS.
I realize it takes more than a cursory knowledge of electronics to understand the true implications of this, which is why a number of you have made incorrect assumptions, but with a bit of extra reading, I firmly believe that at least some of you could become as excited about this breakthrough as I am.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229612</id>
	<title>Clich&#233;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266856080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Netcraft now confirms: in Soviet Russia, a beowulf cluster of these imagines Natalie Portman with hot grits; thereby answering the question "Does it run Linux?" <br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...you insensitive clod.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Netcraft now confirms : in Soviet Russia , a beowulf cluster of these imagines Natalie Portman with hot grits ; thereby answering the question " Does it run Linux ?
" ...you insensitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netcraft now confirms: in Soviet Russia, a beowulf cluster of these imagines Natalie Portman with hot grits; thereby answering the question "Does it run Linux?
" 
 ...you insensitive clod.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230516</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Ceriel Nosforit</author>
	<datestamp>1266860520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this.</p></div><p>It's a witch. A witch! Fire! Fire!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this.It 's a witch .
A witch !
Fire ! Fire !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this.It's a witch.
A witch!
Fire! Fire!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229848</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>metamechanical</author>
	<datestamp>1266857220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That said, it is used in <b>acidemia</b> all the time because nothing allows you to get build smaller structures.</p></div><p>I've never heard such a <b>caustic</b> opinion of our universities!  You must have <b>sulfered</b> much at their hands!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , it is used in acidemia all the time because nothing allows you to get build smaller structures.I 've never heard such a caustic opinion of our universities !
You must have sulfered much at their hands !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, it is used in acidemia all the time because nothing allows you to get build smaller structures.I've never heard such a caustic opinion of our universities!
You must have sulfered much at their hands!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230008</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266858240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree, if you can't put it into mass production, its not going to change anything for the general public.   Process tolerances for manufacturing are much greater than they are for R&amp;D or lab tests.  Labs don't have to worry about having 10 parallel lines running simultaneously 24X7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree , if you ca n't put it into mass production , its not going to change anything for the general public .
Process tolerances for manufacturing are much greater than they are for R&amp;D or lab tests .
Labs do n't have to worry about having 10 parallel lines running simultaneously 24X7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree, if you can't put it into mass production, its not going to change anything for the general public.
Process tolerances for manufacturing are much greater than they are for R&amp;D or lab tests.
Labs don't have to worry about having 10 parallel lines running simultaneously 24X7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229878</id>
	<title>Re:Proof Read Much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266857340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I stuck my diode in yo mama's junction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I stuck my diode in yo mama 's junction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stuck my diode in yo mama's junction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31234874</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266830520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I still won't have good coverage by my house, and the monthly bill will still be half a car payment</p></div></blockquote><p>In which part of Africa do you live?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still wo n't have good coverage by my house , and the monthly bill will still be half a car paymentIn which part of Africa do you live ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still won't have good coverage by my house, and the monthly bill will still be half a car paymentIn which part of Africa do you live?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31231942</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Deltaspectre</author>
	<datestamp>1266864300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least he wasn't <b>lye</b>d to!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least he was n't lyed to !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least he wasn't lyed to!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229510</id>
	<title>Woo!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266855660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Digg this if you're excited about the breakthrough!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Digg this if you 're excited about the breakthrough !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digg this if you're excited about the breakthrough!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230688</id>
	<title>hmmm, that looks familiar</title>
	<author>Goldsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1266861060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where have I seen that design before?</p><p>It's been standard in nanotechnology since <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl035185x" title="acs.org">2004</a> [acs.org], when the carbon nanotube community used it to create intrinsic nanotube (junctionless) transistors.  I really doubt we were the first ones to come up with it either.  Nanotubes aren't compatible with CMOS?  Well, neither are electron beam lithography defined channels and gates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where have I seen that design before ? It 's been standard in nanotechnology since 2004 [ acs.org ] , when the carbon nanotube community used it to create intrinsic nanotube ( junctionless ) transistors .
I really doubt we were the first ones to come up with it either .
Nanotubes are n't compatible with CMOS ?
Well , neither are electron beam lithography defined channels and gates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where have I seen that design before?It's been standard in nanotechnology since 2004 [acs.org], when the carbon nanotube community used it to create intrinsic nanotube (junctionless) transistors.
I really doubt we were the first ones to come up with it either.
Nanotubes aren't compatible with CMOS?
Well, neither are electron beam lithography defined channels and gates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31233164</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Iron Condor</author>
	<datestamp>1266868440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I definitely don't see how these are any "easier to make" than random MOSFETs (of which we make a billion to a chip these days and they all work out of the box).

</p><p>I also don't really see how much "more ideal" they are than MOSFETs. In the end you're going to have to send a couple electrons around. The average transistor these days is switched by maybe a hundred electrons or so (maybe a few hundred, I haven't kept up with the field in the last 10 years). You're definitely not going to get that number below 1 electron for pure quantization reasons, and sheer statistical reliability will probably require many tens of them - so there's not much more "idealness" left to be squeezed out of the concept of "a small switch".

</p><p>Quite frankly, nanowires have attained the status of nuclear fusion: always just around the corner in terms of economic/technological feasibility.

</p><p>Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to the day when Moore's law hits a brick wall and people are <i>forced</i> to start thinking in better terms than "I want the same thing that I had last year, only faster and cheaper". Because that thinking has stunted actual (qualitative, not quantitative) technological progress for the last two decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I definitely do n't see how these are any " easier to make " than random MOSFETs ( of which we make a billion to a chip these days and they all work out of the box ) .
I also do n't really see how much " more ideal " they are than MOSFETs .
In the end you 're going to have to send a couple electrons around .
The average transistor these days is switched by maybe a hundred electrons or so ( maybe a few hundred , I have n't kept up with the field in the last 10 years ) .
You 're definitely not going to get that number below 1 electron for pure quantization reasons , and sheer statistical reliability will probably require many tens of them - so there 's not much more " idealness " left to be squeezed out of the concept of " a small switch " .
Quite frankly , nanowires have attained the status of nuclear fusion : always just around the corner in terms of economic/technological feasibility .
Meanwhile , I 'm looking forward to the day when Moore 's law hits a brick wall and people are forced to start thinking in better terms than " I want the same thing that I had last year , only faster and cheaper " .
Because that thinking has stunted actual ( qualitative , not quantitative ) technological progress for the last two decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I definitely don't see how these are any "easier to make" than random MOSFETs (of which we make a billion to a chip these days and they all work out of the box).
I also don't really see how much "more ideal" they are than MOSFETs.
In the end you're going to have to send a couple electrons around.
The average transistor these days is switched by maybe a hundred electrons or so (maybe a few hundred, I haven't kept up with the field in the last 10 years).
You're definitely not going to get that number below 1 electron for pure quantization reasons, and sheer statistical reliability will probably require many tens of them - so there's not much more "idealness" left to be squeezed out of the concept of "a small switch".
Quite frankly, nanowires have attained the status of nuclear fusion: always just around the corner in terms of economic/technological feasibility.
Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to the day when Moore's law hits a brick wall and people are forced to start thinking in better terms than "I want the same thing that I had last year, only faster and cheaper".
Because that thinking has stunted actual (qualitative, not quantitative) technological progress for the last two decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31231272</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>stevusmichaels</author>
	<datestamp>1266862620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The lack of junctions certainly removes many fabrication steps. And e-beam lithography isn't necessary, it's just the patterning method they use. So it's only a matter of being able to match the feature size with another lithography method. I'm fairly certain 10nm lines made by photolithography have been demonstrated, which is what this structure is suggested for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lack of junctions certainly removes many fabrication steps .
And e-beam lithography is n't necessary , it 's just the patterning method they use .
So it 's only a matter of being able to match the feature size with another lithography method .
I 'm fairly certain 10nm lines made by photolithography have been demonstrated , which is what this structure is suggested for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lack of junctions certainly removes many fabrication steps.
And e-beam lithography isn't necessary, it's just the patterning method they use.
So it's only a matter of being able to match the feature size with another lithography method.
I'm fairly certain 10nm lines made by photolithography have been demonstrated, which is what this structure is suggested for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232330</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1266865380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article itself suggests this. I'm not familiar enough with lithography to comment on the equipment -- it could very well be prohibitive -- but the actual structure of the transistor would be far simpler; making it easier in the sense that there will be less variation in process to deal with.</p><p>With no need for two junctions, there will be no danger of latch-ups; less source/drain capacitance and most importantly, the smallest feature size will no longer be just part of the transistor.</p><p>Not having access to the full article, I'm not entirely certain of the details of how this FET is constructed but from the description, it sounds like a piece of silicon surrounded by thin oxide and attached to a metal. This, in principle, is similar to dual-gate FETs, only it takes it a few steps further.</p><p>What struck me is that the article mentioned that no doping is required; which would be odd considering polysilicon isn't a semiconductor by itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article itself suggests this .
I 'm not familiar enough with lithography to comment on the equipment -- it could very well be prohibitive -- but the actual structure of the transistor would be far simpler ; making it easier in the sense that there will be less variation in process to deal with.With no need for two junctions , there will be no danger of latch-ups ; less source/drain capacitance and most importantly , the smallest feature size will no longer be just part of the transistor.Not having access to the full article , I 'm not entirely certain of the details of how this FET is constructed but from the description , it sounds like a piece of silicon surrounded by thin oxide and attached to a metal .
This , in principle , is similar to dual-gate FETs , only it takes it a few steps further.What struck me is that the article mentioned that no doping is required ; which would be odd considering polysilicon is n't a semiconductor by itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article itself suggests this.
I'm not familiar enough with lithography to comment on the equipment -- it could very well be prohibitive -- but the actual structure of the transistor would be far simpler; making it easier in the sense that there will be less variation in process to deal with.With no need for two junctions, there will be no danger of latch-ups; less source/drain capacitance and most importantly, the smallest feature size will no longer be just part of the transistor.Not having access to the full article, I'm not entirely certain of the details of how this FET is constructed but from the description, it sounds like a piece of silicon surrounded by thin oxide and attached to a metal.
This, in principle, is similar to dual-gate FETs, only it takes it a few steps further.What struck me is that the article mentioned that no doping is required; which would be odd considering polysilicon isn't a semiconductor by itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229780</id>
	<title>Re:Proof Read Much?</title>
	<author>dintech</author>
	<datestamp>1266856860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also:</p><blockquote><div><p>Nature Nanotechnology</p></div></blockquote><p>Is that an oxymoron?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also : Nature NanotechnologyIs that an oxymoron ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also:Nature NanotechnologyIs that an oxymoron?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230420</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>jitendraharlalka</author>
	<datestamp>1266860160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the invention really looks interesting!
The point is how much it can help save power cost and how scalable the architecture is</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the invention really looks interesting !
The point is how much it can help save power cost and how scalable the architecture is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the invention really looks interesting!
The point is how much it can help save power cost and how scalable the architecture is</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230410</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1266860100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but vacuum tubes still create a warmer sound.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but vacuum tubes still create a warmer sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but vacuum tubes still create a warmer sound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31238396</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>treeves</author>
	<datestamp>1266843420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He probably didn't get the pHD he wanted so much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He probably did n't get the pHD he wanted so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He probably didn't get the pHD he wanted so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532</id>
	<title>Proof Read Much?</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1266855720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The gate can be used the squeeze the electron channel to nothing without the use of junctions or doping.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Proof Read Much?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The gate can be used the squeeze the electron channel to nothing without the use of junctions or doping .
Proof Read Much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The gate can be used the squeeze the electron channel to nothing without the use of junctions or doping.
Proof Read Much?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31231400</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1266862860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this.</p></div><p>Sure, assuming we get a revolution in power storage/generation/transmission of a suitable size.
</p><p>One of the problems with making smaller silicon transistors is the leakage currents start to creep back up higher.  This means more power consumption for the same speed.  That's in addition to the normal increase in power consumption that goes along with faster clock rates.  This type of transistor would sidestep this issue, as well as avoid the limitations of photolithography.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this.Sure , assuming we get a revolution in power storage/generation/transmission of a suitable size .
One of the problems with making smaller silicon transistors is the leakage currents start to creep back up higher .
This means more power consumption for the same speed .
That 's in addition to the normal increase in power consumption that goes along with faster clock rates .
This type of transistor would sidestep this issue , as well as avoid the limitations of photolithography .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this.Sure, assuming we get a revolution in power storage/generation/transmission of a suitable size.
One of the problems with making smaller silicon transistors is the leakage currents start to creep back up higher.
This means more power consumption for the same speed.
That's in addition to the normal increase in power consumption that goes along with faster clock rates.
This type of transistor would sidestep this issue, as well as avoid the limitations of photolithography.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229808</id>
	<title>Re:Proof Read Much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266856980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I give up.  What about that sentence is wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I give up .
What about that sentence is wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I give up.
What about that sentence is wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229968</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1266857940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>5-10? more probably will be around 20. Inertia happens. <a href="http://www.xkcd.com/678/" title="xkcd.com">xkcd</a> [xkcd.com] too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>5-10 ?
more probably will be around 20 .
Inertia happens .
xkcd [ xkcd.com ] too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5-10?
more probably will be around 20.
Inertia happens.
xkcd [xkcd.com] too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230086</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1266858660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Something to get excited about in the field of basic electronic components.</p></div><p>It's an interesting bit of basic research.  There's probably another decade of almost-as-basic research to be done before we'll know if this will ever get out of the lab.</p><p>There are uncountably many interesting phenomena that never make it out of the lab for every one that does.  Doing the basic research is a necessary aspect of technological innovation, but it is by no means sufficient, and the ability to do something on a small-scale with hands-on expertise is no indication that it will be useful or usable in an industrial setting.</p><p>One of the problems with tech news reporting is that the continual stream of stories like this one, full of breathless anticipation, is never followed by an honest review five years later of where the "breakthrough" ended up, which means "breakthroughs" tend to fade quietly from memory without any awareness or acknowledgement that they didn't pan out as expected.</p><p>If we saw more followups on ideas that never got beyond the "interesting phenomenon" stage we'd have a greater appreciation for the tiny fraction of innovations that do live to see the light of day in industrial applications.   But that would require tech reporters to do more than lightly edit press releases and call them "news".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something to get excited about in the field of basic electronic components.It 's an interesting bit of basic research .
There 's probably another decade of almost-as-basic research to be done before we 'll know if this will ever get out of the lab.There are uncountably many interesting phenomena that never make it out of the lab for every one that does .
Doing the basic research is a necessary aspect of technological innovation , but it is by no means sufficient , and the ability to do something on a small-scale with hands-on expertise is no indication that it will be useful or usable in an industrial setting.One of the problems with tech news reporting is that the continual stream of stories like this one , full of breathless anticipation , is never followed by an honest review five years later of where the " breakthrough " ended up , which means " breakthroughs " tend to fade quietly from memory without any awareness or acknowledgement that they did n't pan out as expected.If we saw more followups on ideas that never got beyond the " interesting phenomenon " stage we 'd have a greater appreciation for the tiny fraction of innovations that do live to see the light of day in industrial applications .
But that would require tech reporters to do more than lightly edit press releases and call them " news " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something to get excited about in the field of basic electronic components.It's an interesting bit of basic research.
There's probably another decade of almost-as-basic research to be done before we'll know if this will ever get out of the lab.There are uncountably many interesting phenomena that never make it out of the lab for every one that does.
Doing the basic research is a necessary aspect of technological innovation, but it is by no means sufficient, and the ability to do something on a small-scale with hands-on expertise is no indication that it will be useful or usable in an industrial setting.One of the problems with tech news reporting is that the continual stream of stories like this one, full of breathless anticipation, is never followed by an honest review five years later of where the "breakthrough" ended up, which means "breakthroughs" tend to fade quietly from memory without any awareness or acknowledgement that they didn't pan out as expected.If we saw more followups on ideas that never got beyond the "interesting phenomenon" stage we'd have a greater appreciation for the tiny fraction of innovations that do live to see the light of day in industrial applications.
But that would require tech reporters to do more than lightly edit press releases and call them "news".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230076</id>
	<title>Re:Proof Read Much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266858660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing humans do is any more unnatural than ants making tunnels or chimps using sticks as tools.  Just because we have consciousness does not mean we get to proclaim ourselves superior to and ungoverned by nature.  Unless you're an Intelligent Design type, then you might have an argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing humans do is any more unnatural than ants making tunnels or chimps using sticks as tools .
Just because we have consciousness does not mean we get to proclaim ourselves superior to and ungoverned by nature .
Unless you 're an Intelligent Design type , then you might have an argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing humans do is any more unnatural than ants making tunnels or chimps using sticks as tools.
Just because we have consciousness does not mean we get to proclaim ourselves superior to and ungoverned by nature.
Unless you're an Intelligent Design type, then you might have an argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232142</id>
	<title>First junctionless transistor?</title>
	<author>burnin1965</author>
	<datestamp>1266864840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is very slim on details and dead wrong on some important facts.</p><blockquote><div><p>The gate can be used the squeeze the electron channel to nothing without the use of junctions or doping.</p></div></blockquote><p>The lack of a junction is not unique, ever heard of a <a href="http://www.play-hookey.com/semiconductors/depletion\_mode\_mosfet.html" title="play-hookey.com">MOSFET</a> [play-hookey.com], "There is no pn junction, so there is no depletion region."</p><p>And I'm curious how they induce conductivity in silicon without dopants, considering that silicon is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor" title="wikipedia.org">semiconductor</a> [wikipedia.org] and a "semiconductor is a material that has an electrical conductivity between that of a conductor and an insulator", therefore "conductivity may easily be modified by introducing impurities into their crystal lattice" via doping.</p><p>And the article includes one other statement that is questionable in my opinion...</p><blockquote><div><p>We have designed and fabricated the world's first junctionless transistor that significantly reduces power consumption<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Another key challenge for the semiconductor industry is reducing the power consumption of microchips. Minimising current leakage is one of the main challenges in today's complex transistors</p></div></blockquote><p>Gate leakage is an issue but the true bane of transistor power consumption is Rdson (resistance drain to source when transistor is on). The reason for the massive heat sinks and fans on processors today is not due to gate leakage its due to the resistance of the transistor channels and the various interconnects.</p><p>Current flowing through the resistive channel and internconnects in the millions of transistors in a processor generates heat for the same reason that a basic carbon based resistor connected to a voltage source will heat up. And increasing the doping level in the gates and poly silicon interconnects reduces resistance, with no doping it seems the problem of power loss through heat generation will only be worse.</p><p>The article is somewhat interesting and perhaps it is just a bad article lacking significant detail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is very slim on details and dead wrong on some important facts.The gate can be used the squeeze the electron channel to nothing without the use of junctions or doping.The lack of a junction is not unique , ever heard of a MOSFET [ play-hookey.com ] , " There is no pn junction , so there is no depletion region .
" And I 'm curious how they induce conductivity in silicon without dopants , considering that silicon is a semiconductor [ wikipedia.org ] and a " semiconductor is a material that has an electrical conductivity between that of a conductor and an insulator " , therefore " conductivity may easily be modified by introducing impurities into their crystal lattice " via doping.And the article includes one other statement that is questionable in my opinion...We have designed and fabricated the world 's first junctionless transistor that significantly reduces power consumption ... Another key challenge for the semiconductor industry is reducing the power consumption of microchips .
Minimising current leakage is one of the main challenges in today 's complex transistorsGate leakage is an issue but the true bane of transistor power consumption is Rdson ( resistance drain to source when transistor is on ) .
The reason for the massive heat sinks and fans on processors today is not due to gate leakage its due to the resistance of the transistor channels and the various interconnects.Current flowing through the resistive channel and internconnects in the millions of transistors in a processor generates heat for the same reason that a basic carbon based resistor connected to a voltage source will heat up .
And increasing the doping level in the gates and poly silicon interconnects reduces resistance , with no doping it seems the problem of power loss through heat generation will only be worse.The article is somewhat interesting and perhaps it is just a bad article lacking significant detail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is very slim on details and dead wrong on some important facts.The gate can be used the squeeze the electron channel to nothing without the use of junctions or doping.The lack of a junction is not unique, ever heard of a MOSFET [play-hookey.com], "There is no pn junction, so there is no depletion region.
"And I'm curious how they induce conductivity in silicon without dopants, considering that silicon is a semiconductor [wikipedia.org] and a "semiconductor is a material that has an electrical conductivity between that of a conductor and an insulator", therefore "conductivity may easily be modified by introducing impurities into their crystal lattice" via doping.And the article includes one other statement that is questionable in my opinion...We have designed and fabricated the world's first junctionless transistor that significantly reduces power consumption ... Another key challenge for the semiconductor industry is reducing the power consumption of microchips.
Minimising current leakage is one of the main challenges in today's complex transistorsGate leakage is an issue but the true bane of transistor power consumption is Rdson (resistance drain to source when transistor is on).
The reason for the massive heat sinks and fans on processors today is not due to gate leakage its due to the resistance of the transistor channels and the various interconnects.Current flowing through the resistive channel and internconnects in the millions of transistors in a processor generates heat for the same reason that a basic carbon based resistor connected to a voltage source will heat up.
And increasing the doping level in the gates and poly silicon interconnects reduces resistance, with no doping it seems the problem of power loss through heat generation will only be worse.The article is somewhat interesting and perhaps it is just a bad article lacking significant detail.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229882</id>
	<title>Cark</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1266857340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cark boiiiiiiiiii!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cark boiiiiiiiiii ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cark boiiiiiiiiii!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232706</id>
	<title>EE Times is confused?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266866640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The writer for EE Times seems to have been confused. The story describes a field-effect transistor. They never had junctions.

<br> <br>What is described is a novel method of making a field-effect transistor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The writer for EE Times seems to have been confused .
The story describes a field-effect transistor .
They never had junctions .
What is described is a novel method of making a field-effect transistor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The writer for EE Times seems to have been confused.
The story describes a field-effect transistor.
They never had junctions.
What is described is a novel method of making a field-effect transistor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229986</id>
	<title>Yawn.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266858060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old news.  This kind of thing has been thrown around a lot, for several years.</p><p>But some university made a single transistor, and now suddenly the revolution is forthcoming.  Last week it was graphene transistors, the week before that, 100GHz transistors on diamond.</p><p>This is the direction that things are probably going to move - different geometries, wrap-around gates to improve gate control - and there's going to be a lot of materials science and new (to CMOS) materials needed.  But we're not there yet, we're quite a ways out... and in many ways, this isn't even the limiting factor in microprocessors - it's wire delay, parasitic capacitances.  That's why so many groups and corporations are focusing on silicon and polysilicon waveguides - using light as an interconnect, nearly lossless, instant, no parasitic coupling (ideally).</p><p>I don't want to downplay what they did *too* much... but universities piss me off when they just become a PR machine.  It's just plain irresponsible; it's a pissing match, and if just half of the things they claimed were true, that how things are right now would seem like the dark ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old news .
This kind of thing has been thrown around a lot , for several years.But some university made a single transistor , and now suddenly the revolution is forthcoming .
Last week it was graphene transistors , the week before that , 100GHz transistors on diamond.This is the direction that things are probably going to move - different geometries , wrap-around gates to improve gate control - and there 's going to be a lot of materials science and new ( to CMOS ) materials needed .
But we 're not there yet , we 're quite a ways out... and in many ways , this is n't even the limiting factor in microprocessors - it 's wire delay , parasitic capacitances .
That 's why so many groups and corporations are focusing on silicon and polysilicon waveguides - using light as an interconnect , nearly lossless , instant , no parasitic coupling ( ideally ) .I do n't want to downplay what they did * too * much... but universities piss me off when they just become a PR machine .
It 's just plain irresponsible ; it 's a pissing match , and if just half of the things they claimed were true , that how things are right now would seem like the dark ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old news.
This kind of thing has been thrown around a lot, for several years.But some university made a single transistor, and now suddenly the revolution is forthcoming.
Last week it was graphene transistors, the week before that, 100GHz transistors on diamond.This is the direction that things are probably going to move - different geometries, wrap-around gates to improve gate control - and there's going to be a lot of materials science and new (to CMOS) materials needed.
But we're not there yet, we're quite a ways out... and in many ways, this isn't even the limiting factor in microprocessors - it's wire delay, parasitic capacitances.
That's why so many groups and corporations are focusing on silicon and polysilicon waveguides - using light as an interconnect, nearly lossless, instant, no parasitic coupling (ideally).I don't want to downplay what they did *too* much... but universities piss me off when they just become a PR machine.
It's just plain irresponsible; it's a pissing match, and if just half of the things they claimed were true, that how things are right now would seem like the dark ages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582</id>
	<title>Finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266855960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something to get excited about in the field of basic electronic components.  Virtually ideal transistors that are easy to fabricate will revolutionize the nanoprocessor industry.  I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something to get excited about in the field of basic electronic components .
Virtually ideal transistors that are easy to fabricate will revolutionize the nanoprocessor industry .
I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something to get excited about in the field of basic electronic components.
Virtually ideal transistors that are easy to fabricate will revolutionize the nanoprocessor industry.
I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229908</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1266857460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I didn't see anything that suggested fabrication would be easy.</p></div><p>I saw the headline but thats about all I read.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't see anything that suggested fabrication would be easy.I saw the headline but thats about all I read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't see anything that suggested fabrication would be easy.I saw the headline but thats about all I read.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230548</id>
	<title>Was there a whisky shortage?</title>
	<author>egcagrac0</author>
	<datestamp>1266860640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to legend, God showed the Irish how to make whisky, so that they wouldn't take over the world.</p><p>Too many exports from Bushmill's, Jameson, Tullamore, Michael Collins, Clontarf...?</p><p>(More power to 'em and all, just trying to better understand the cause.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to legend , God showed the Irish how to make whisky , so that they would n't take over the world.Too many exports from Bushmill 's , Jameson , Tullamore , Michael Collins , Clontarf... ?
( More power to 'em and all , just trying to better understand the cause .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to legend, God showed the Irish how to make whisky, so that they wouldn't take over the world.Too many exports from Bushmill's, Jameson, Tullamore, Michael Collins, Clontarf...?
(More power to 'em and all, just trying to better understand the cause.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230016</id>
	<title>Re:Finally...</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1266858300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this.</p></div><p>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this.</p></div><p>And I still won't have good coverage by my house, and the monthly bill will still be half a car payment, and all I want is a phone to make and receive calls.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this.I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this.And I still wo n't have good coverage by my house , and the monthly bill will still be half a car payment , and all I want is a phone to make and receive calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this.I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years WITHOUT this.And I still won't have good coverage by my house, and the monthly bill will still be half a car payment, and all I want is a phone to make and receive calls.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31235252</id>
	<title>LEDs?</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1266831660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what uses this will have in the LED sector, if any at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what uses this will have in the LED sector , if any at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what uses this will have in the LED sector, if any at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31231094</id>
	<title>Re:Proof Read Much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266862200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nothing humans do is any more unnatural than ants making tunnels or chimps using sticks as tools.</p></div><p>I agree with your reasoning.  But if we take it one step further...</p><p>"Your honor, my client is not guilty of murder.  The victim died of natural causes."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing humans do is any more unnatural than ants making tunnels or chimps using sticks as tools.I agree with your reasoning .
But if we take it one step further... " Your honor , my client is not guilty of murder .
The victim died of natural causes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing humans do is any more unnatural than ants making tunnels or chimps using sticks as tools.I agree with your reasoning.
But if we take it one step further..."Your honor, my client is not guilty of murder.
The victim died of natural causes.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230076</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31234324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31234620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31234874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31231094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31231400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31236952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31231942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31237930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31231272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31252090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31238396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31233164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31233512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1358226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1358226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31233164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31234324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31231272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229848
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31231942
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31238396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31236952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31231400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31233512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31252090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232670
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31234874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1358226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1358226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1358226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31230076
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31231094
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31234620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1358226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31232142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1358226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31237930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1358226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1358226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1358226.31229882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
