<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_23_1545204</id>
	<title>Creating Electric Power From Light Using Gold Nanoparticles</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266941760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>cyberfringe writes <i>"Professor of Materials Science Dawn Bonnell and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a way to turn optical radiation into electrical current that <a href="http://www.gizmag.com/gold-nanoparticles-turn-light-into-electrical-current/14288/">could lead to self-powering molecular circuits</a> and efficient data storage.  They create surface plasmons that ride the surface of gold nanoparticles on a glass substrate.  Surface plasmons were found to increase the efficiency of current production by a factor of four to 20, and with many independent parameters to optimize, enhancement factors could reach into the thousands. 'If the efficiency of the system could be scaled up without any additional, unforeseen limitations, we could conceivably manufacture a 1A, 1V sample the diameter of a human hair and an inch long,' Prof. Bonnell explained. The academic paper was published in the current issue of <em>ACS Nano</em>. (<a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn901148m">Abstract available</a> for free.) The significance?  This may allow the creation of nano-sized circuits that can power themselves through sunlight (or another directed light source).  Delivery of power to nanodevices is one of the big challenges in the field."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>cyberfringe writes " Professor of Materials Science Dawn Bonnell and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a way to turn optical radiation into electrical current that could lead to self-powering molecular circuits and efficient data storage .
They create surface plasmons that ride the surface of gold nanoparticles on a glass substrate .
Surface plasmons were found to increase the efficiency of current production by a factor of four to 20 , and with many independent parameters to optimize , enhancement factors could reach into the thousands .
'If the efficiency of the system could be scaled up without any additional , unforeseen limitations , we could conceivably manufacture a 1A , 1V sample the diameter of a human hair and an inch long, ' Prof. Bonnell explained .
The academic paper was published in the current issue of ACS Nano .
( Abstract available for free .
) The significance ?
This may allow the creation of nano-sized circuits that can power themselves through sunlight ( or another directed light source ) .
Delivery of power to nanodevices is one of the big challenges in the field .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cyberfringe writes "Professor of Materials Science Dawn Bonnell and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a way to turn optical radiation into electrical current that could lead to self-powering molecular circuits and efficient data storage.
They create surface plasmons that ride the surface of gold nanoparticles on a glass substrate.
Surface plasmons were found to increase the efficiency of current production by a factor of four to 20, and with many independent parameters to optimize, enhancement factors could reach into the thousands.
'If the efficiency of the system could be scaled up without any additional, unforeseen limitations, we could conceivably manufacture a 1A, 1V sample the diameter of a human hair and an inch long,' Prof. Bonnell explained.
The academic paper was published in the current issue of ACS Nano.
(Abstract available for free.
) The significance?
This may allow the creation of nano-sized circuits that can power themselves through sunlight (or another directed light source).
Delivery of power to nanodevices is one of the big challenges in the field.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245556</id>
	<title>Get with the program, editors!</title>
	<author>pushing-robot</author>
	<datestamp>1266946260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been a whole <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/21/1846235/Astrium-Hopes-To-Test-Grabbing-Solar-Energy-From-Orbit" title="slashdot.org">month</a> [slashdot.org] since the last amazing-solar-tech-real-soon-now article.  I expect to be entertained by visions of our solar-powered utopian future on at least a weekly basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been a whole month [ slashdot.org ] since the last amazing-solar-tech-real-soon-now article .
I expect to be entertained by visions of our solar-powered utopian future on at least a weekly basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been a whole month [slashdot.org] since the last amazing-solar-tech-real-soon-now article.
I expect to be entertained by visions of our solar-powered utopian future on at least a weekly basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247442</id>
	<title>Re:Get with the program, editors!</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1266952740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And meanwhile, consumer solar tech *does* continue to advance.  Have you priced solar panels lately?  <a href="http://www.solarbuzz.com/" title="solarbuzz.com">Solarbuzz</a> [solarbuzz.com] lists:</p><p>Lowest Mono-crystalline Module Price: $2.37/Wp<br>Lowest Multi-crystalline Module Price: $1.98/Wp<br>Lowest Thin Film Module price: $1.76/Wp</p><p>You always see this: in any field where there's lots of announcements about new tech, people berating them for that tech not showing up instantly on the consumer market... while meanwhile, the consumer market *does* continue to advance behind the scenes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And meanwhile , consumer solar tech * does * continue to advance .
Have you priced solar panels lately ?
Solarbuzz [ solarbuzz.com ] lists : Lowest Mono-crystalline Module Price : $ 2.37/WpLowest Multi-crystalline Module Price : $ 1.98/WpLowest Thin Film Module price : $ 1.76/WpYou always see this : in any field where there 's lots of announcements about new tech , people berating them for that tech not showing up instantly on the consumer market... while meanwhile , the consumer market * does * continue to advance behind the scenes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And meanwhile, consumer solar tech *does* continue to advance.
Have you priced solar panels lately?
Solarbuzz [solarbuzz.com] lists:Lowest Mono-crystalline Module Price: $2.37/WpLowest Multi-crystalline Module Price: $1.98/WpLowest Thin Film Module price: $1.76/WpYou always see this: in any field where there's lots of announcements about new tech, people berating them for that tech not showing up instantly on the consumer market... while meanwhile, the consumer market *does* continue to advance behind the scenes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245456</id>
	<title>"Self-powering"</title>
	<author>gumpish</author>
	<datestamp>1266945780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're powered by light then they aren't really "self-powered", are they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're powered by light then they are n't really " self-powered " , are they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're powered by light then they aren't really "self-powered", are they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245984</id>
	<title>Re:WOW!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>150 watts per square-inch (call it about 150 human hairs per-inch) is not in the realm of reality. That would vaporize you. The sun produces 1,353 watts per square meter on earth, discounting the atmosphere. One square meter = 1,550 square inches. So the sun produces less than 1 watt per square inch. Imagine if the sun were 150x hotter. It would not be pleasant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>150 watts per square-inch ( call it about 150 human hairs per-inch ) is not in the realm of reality .
That would vaporize you .
The sun produces 1,353 watts per square meter on earth , discounting the atmosphere .
One square meter = 1,550 square inches .
So the sun produces less than 1 watt per square inch .
Imagine if the sun were 150x hotter .
It would not be pleasant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>150 watts per square-inch (call it about 150 human hairs per-inch) is not in the realm of reality.
That would vaporize you.
The sun produces 1,353 watts per square meter on earth, discounting the atmosphere.
One square meter = 1,550 square inches.
So the sun produces less than 1 watt per square inch.
Imagine if the sun were 150x hotter.
It would not be pleasant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246228</id>
	<title>Is the poster a goldbug?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266948540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe he's worried about the pullback
in the metal.  Go Fed!  Go fiat!  Go paper money!
LOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe he 's worried about the pullback in the metal .
Go Fed !
Go fiat !
Go paper money !
LOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe he's worried about the pullback
in the metal.
Go Fed!
Go fiat!
Go paper money!
LOL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31251140</id>
	<title>Re:"Self-powering"</title>
	<author>EatHam</author>
	<datestamp>1266922380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If they're powered by light then they aren't really "self-powered", are they?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/blockquote
They are if you can get them to produce light.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're powered by light then they are n't really " self-powered " , are they ?
/blockquote They are if you can get them to produce light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're powered by light then they aren't really "self-powered", are they?
/blockquote
They are if you can get them to produce light.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245562</id>
	<title>Hooray!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266946260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I cover my solar calculator with gold, it can have a color screen!</p><p>Though seriously, could someone in the know extract efficiency data vs solar cells from this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I cover my solar calculator with gold , it can have a color screen ! Though seriously , could someone in the know extract efficiency data vs solar cells from this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I cover my solar calculator with gold, it can have a color screen!Though seriously, could someone in the know extract efficiency data vs solar cells from this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245706</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266946920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, Mr. T will be replacing four nuclear power stations and Hoover Dam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , Mr. T will be replacing four nuclear power stations and Hoover Dam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, Mr. T will be replacing four nuclear power stations and Hoover Dam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31255858</id>
	<title>Re:WOW!</title>
	<author>howzit</author>
	<datestamp>1266949860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now we know why gold was so important to civilisations world wide. Maybe that ET thing is not so far fetched! The Nazcar lines etc?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we know why gold was so important to civilisations world wide .
Maybe that ET thing is not so far fetched !
The Nazcar lines etc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we know why gold was so important to civilisations world wide.
Maybe that ET thing is not so far fetched!
The Nazcar lines etc?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246636</id>
	<title>Re:Simple Maths Are Hard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>current production by a factor of <b>four to 20,</b> </p></div><p>AKA: One to five.</p><p>And while I am being pedantic, let's discuss consistency. Proper grammar, so far as I recall, requests that you use a consistent numerical format when writing. If you want to say 20, say 4 as well. If you want to  say four, say twenty as well. "Four to 20," just looks like some kind of bastardized wretch that a high school student coughed up on a rushed writing assignment.</p></div><p>I believe that statement means production can be increased anywhere from four times what it is now to twenty times what it is now.  It's not meant to be a ratio.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>current production by a factor of four to 20 , AKA : One to five.And while I am being pedantic , let 's discuss consistency .
Proper grammar , so far as I recall , requests that you use a consistent numerical format when writing .
If you want to say 20 , say 4 as well .
If you want to say four , say twenty as well .
" Four to 20 , " just looks like some kind of bastardized wretch that a high school student coughed up on a rushed writing assignment.I believe that statement means production can be increased anywhere from four times what it is now to twenty times what it is now .
It 's not meant to be a ratio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>current production by a factor of four to 20, AKA: One to five.And while I am being pedantic, let's discuss consistency.
Proper grammar, so far as I recall, requests that you use a consistent numerical format when writing.
If you want to say 20, say 4 as well.
If you want to  say four, say twenty as well.
"Four to 20," just looks like some kind of bastardized wretch that a high school student coughed up on a rushed writing assignment.I believe that statement means production can be increased anywhere from four times what it is now to twenty times what it is now.
It's not meant to be a ratio.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31248082</id>
	<title>Re:Get with the program, editors!</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1266955020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I expect to be entertained by visions of our solar-powered utopian future on at least a weekly basis.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The true irony is that we already can build large-scale efficient solar power stations. They use the amazing cutting-edge technology called "mirrors" to concentrate sunlight to heat water and drive turbines. Unfortunately, even this supertech can't get around cloudy days or nighttime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I expect to be entertained by visions of our solar-powered utopian future on at least a weekly basis .
The true irony is that we already can build large-scale efficient solar power stations .
They use the amazing cutting-edge technology called " mirrors " to concentrate sunlight to heat water and drive turbines .
Unfortunately , even this supertech ca n't get around cloudy days or nighttime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I expect to be entertained by visions of our solar-powered utopian future on at least a weekly basis.
The true irony is that we already can build large-scale efficient solar power stations.
They use the amazing cutting-edge technology called "mirrors" to concentrate sunlight to heat water and drive turbines.
Unfortunately, even this supertech can't get around cloudy days or nighttime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246418</id>
	<title>Re:WOW!</title>
	<author>mauhiz</author>
	<datestamp>1266949260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>TFA isn't particularly enlightning</p></div><p>That is because it is not meant to produce electricity in your golden brain cells.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA is n't particularly enlightningThat is because it is not meant to produce electricity in your golden brain cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA isn't particularly enlightningThat is because it is not meant to produce electricity in your golden brain cells.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247842</id>
	<title>Re:Simple Maths Are Hard</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1266954120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I believe they mean "a factor somewhere between 4:1 and 20:1".  It's a much less precise statement, but given the wording it makes a lot more sense than interpreting it as a single ratio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I believe they mean " a factor somewhere between 4 : 1 and 20 : 1 " .
It 's a much less precise statement , but given the wording it makes a lot more sense than interpreting it as a single ratio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I believe they mean "a factor somewhere between 4:1 and 20:1".
It's a much less precise statement, but given the wording it makes a lot more sense than interpreting it as a single ratio.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245780</id>
	<title>Old News</title>
	<author>FibreOptix</author>
	<datestamp>1266947160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having a working knowledge of SPR, I had this idea a couple of years ago and found all kinds of patents on it and a few prototypes already developed... This is not news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having a working knowledge of SPR , I had this idea a couple of years ago and found all kinds of patents on it and a few prototypes already developed... This is not news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having a working knowledge of SPR, I had this idea a couple of years ago and found all kinds of patents on it and a few prototypes already developed... This is not news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246592</id>
	<title>Up up and away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266949860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Efficient transfer of beam power... am I the only one thinking we just got one step closer to a space elevator?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Efficient transfer of beam power... am I the only one thinking we just got one step closer to a space elevator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Efficient transfer of beam power... am I the only one thinking we just got one step closer to a space elevator?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246254</id>
	<title>more science PR nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266948660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know Dawn, and I have no idea if the reporter is taking statements out of context or what...</p><p>1) This isn't photovoltaic (power generating), and nothing like photovoltaics was demonstrated.  Instead, what they showed was that the resistance of a film of gold nanoparticles can be modulated by shining light on it.  This isn't overstated in the actual paper, and the explanation they give is good (surface plasmons creating excited states in the polymer between the particles, in the case of red and green light).  They used low power diode lasers to see the photoresponse.</p><p>2) Scaling of the system: in the paper, they tried a few different sized devices, and say they saw the same response from each of them.  This is actually really bad, as you would hope to get more of this kind of response from a larger system.</p><p>3) The 1V, 1A comment:  Totally crazy.  They're seeing less than 1pA at 1V right now, and as they pointed out, are not seeing any scaling behavior, let alone good scaling.  It's irresponsible to make (or print) this comment.  If doubling the size of the device doesn't change the photoresponse, you should not assume a device 1000 times as big gives 1000 times more response.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know Dawn , and I have no idea if the reporter is taking statements out of context or what...1 ) This is n't photovoltaic ( power generating ) , and nothing like photovoltaics was demonstrated .
Instead , what they showed was that the resistance of a film of gold nanoparticles can be modulated by shining light on it .
This is n't overstated in the actual paper , and the explanation they give is good ( surface plasmons creating excited states in the polymer between the particles , in the case of red and green light ) .
They used low power diode lasers to see the photoresponse.2 ) Scaling of the system : in the paper , they tried a few different sized devices , and say they saw the same response from each of them .
This is actually really bad , as you would hope to get more of this kind of response from a larger system.3 ) The 1V , 1A comment : Totally crazy .
They 're seeing less than 1pA at 1V right now , and as they pointed out , are not seeing any scaling behavior , let alone good scaling .
It 's irresponsible to make ( or print ) this comment .
If doubling the size of the device does n't change the photoresponse , you should not assume a device 1000 times as big gives 1000 times more response .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know Dawn, and I have no idea if the reporter is taking statements out of context or what...1) This isn't photovoltaic (power generating), and nothing like photovoltaics was demonstrated.
Instead, what they showed was that the resistance of a film of gold nanoparticles can be modulated by shining light on it.
This isn't overstated in the actual paper, and the explanation they give is good (surface plasmons creating excited states in the polymer between the particles, in the case of red and green light).
They used low power diode lasers to see the photoresponse.2) Scaling of the system: in the paper, they tried a few different sized devices, and say they saw the same response from each of them.
This is actually really bad, as you would hope to get more of this kind of response from a larger system.3) The 1V, 1A comment:  Totally crazy.
They're seeing less than 1pA at 1V right now, and as they pointed out, are not seeing any scaling behavior, let alone good scaling.
It's irresponsible to make (or print) this comment.
If doubling the size of the device doesn't change the photoresponse, you should not assume a device 1000 times as big gives 1000 times more response.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246992</id>
	<title>TFA uses Bad Math!</title>
	<author>OmniGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1266951180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider the article's quoted claim of a 1A, 1V sample 1 inch long and the diameter of a human hair. This is plainly ridiculous.</p><p>Solar radiation intensity in near-Earth space is 1353 W/m^2 (on Earth, under all that atmosphere, it's more like 120 W/m^2). This represents the maximum possible energy input to a solar cell, of whatever design.</p><p>A human hair is about 0.001 inch in diameter, so a 1-inch piece held lengthwise covers an area of 0.001 in^2, or 6.45E-7 m^2. At the stated solar irradiance, that area will receive 873 uW of solar irradiance at MOST, in orbit, and rather less on Earth. Unless their solar cell has a 120,000\% efficiency, they'll come up rather short on the 1-watt claim (1 V * 1 A = 1 W) in TFA.</p><p>I call Fuzzy Math, at least on that particular claim. The rest of their idea may well be good; let's hope the fellow who said this was misquoted, though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider the article 's quoted claim of a 1A , 1V sample 1 inch long and the diameter of a human hair .
This is plainly ridiculous.Solar radiation intensity in near-Earth space is 1353 W/m ^ 2 ( on Earth , under all that atmosphere , it 's more like 120 W/m ^ 2 ) .
This represents the maximum possible energy input to a solar cell , of whatever design.A human hair is about 0.001 inch in diameter , so a 1-inch piece held lengthwise covers an area of 0.001 in ^ 2 , or 6.45E-7 m ^ 2 .
At the stated solar irradiance , that area will receive 873 uW of solar irradiance at MOST , in orbit , and rather less on Earth .
Unless their solar cell has a 120,000 \ % efficiency , they 'll come up rather short on the 1-watt claim ( 1 V * 1 A = 1 W ) in TFA.I call Fuzzy Math , at least on that particular claim .
The rest of their idea may well be good ; let 's hope the fellow who said this was misquoted , though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider the article's quoted claim of a 1A, 1V sample 1 inch long and the diameter of a human hair.
This is plainly ridiculous.Solar radiation intensity in near-Earth space is 1353 W/m^2 (on Earth, under all that atmosphere, it's more like 120 W/m^2).
This represents the maximum possible energy input to a solar cell, of whatever design.A human hair is about 0.001 inch in diameter, so a 1-inch piece held lengthwise covers an area of 0.001 in^2, or 6.45E-7 m^2.
At the stated solar irradiance, that area will receive 873 uW of solar irradiance at MOST, in orbit, and rather less on Earth.
Unless their solar cell has a 120,000\% efficiency, they'll come up rather short on the 1-watt claim (1 V * 1 A = 1 W) in TFA.I call Fuzzy Math, at least on that particular claim.
The rest of their idea may well be good; let's hope the fellow who said this was misquoted, though...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31265584</id>
	<title>Re:WOW!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265109480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1 amp at one volt is one watt; a device using this tech the size of a phone battery could run an air conditioner if there were any way to keep the thing from melting.</p></div><p>That&rsquo;s what the (huge) air conditioner is for!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 amp at one volt is one watt ; a device using this tech the size of a phone battery could run an air conditioner if there were any way to keep the thing from melting.That    s what the ( huge ) air conditioner is for !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 amp at one volt is one watt; a device using this tech the size of a phone battery could run an air conditioner if there were any way to keep the thing from melting.That’s what the (huge) air conditioner is for!
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31250282</id>
	<title>nope, guess again</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1266919380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Existing commercial concentrating photovoltaic systems already work in the 400 to 1,000 times concentration range.  Care to do your math again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Existing commercial concentrating photovoltaic systems already work in the 400 to 1,000 times concentration range .
Care to do your math again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Existing commercial concentrating photovoltaic systems already work in the 400 to 1,000 times concentration range.
Care to do your math again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245970</id>
	<title>Re:"Self-powering"</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1266947640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have their own on-board power generation.  Ergo, self-powered.</p><p>Any other definition means that nothing was self-powered except possibly and extremely hypothetically the Big Bang.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have their own on-board power generation .
Ergo , self-powered.Any other definition means that nothing was self-powered except possibly and extremely hypothetically the Big Bang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have their own on-board power generation.
Ergo, self-powered.Any other definition means that nothing was self-powered except possibly and extremely hypothetically the Big Bang.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247270</id>
	<title>Re:WOW!</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1266952080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This could be in refrence to a theoretical vs. actual maximum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be in refrence to a theoretical vs. actual maximum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be in refrence to a theoretical vs. actual maximum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246076</id>
	<title>Nature loves expensive metals</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1266947940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet again, a plausible/viable alternative energy source requires expensive metals. Wouldn't it be easier to make a list of all these useful-but-expensive technologies, make billions of them all out of tin, then switch all the rare earth and precious metal prices to that of tin, and make tin really expensive? As long as we make enough before raising the price of tin, it should save us a lot of money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet again , a plausible/viable alternative energy source requires expensive metals .
Would n't it be easier to make a list of all these useful-but-expensive technologies , make billions of them all out of tin , then switch all the rare earth and precious metal prices to that of tin , and make tin really expensive ?
As long as we make enough before raising the price of tin , it should save us a lot of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet again, a plausible/viable alternative energy source requires expensive metals.
Wouldn't it be easier to make a list of all these useful-but-expensive technologies, make billions of them all out of tin, then switch all the rare earth and precious metal prices to that of tin, and make tin really expensive?
As long as we make enough before raising the price of tin, it should save us a lot of money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247388</id>
	<title>Here ya go</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1266952560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to disappoint, I only do journal entries, not front page submissions. You would have gotten your fix sooner. This link for yet another <a href="http://media.caltech.edu/press\_releases/13325" title="caltech.edu" rel="nofollow"> amazing solar breakthrough that will get buried like the rest of them</a> [caltech.edu] was from a few days ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to disappoint , I only do journal entries , not front page submissions .
You would have gotten your fix sooner .
This link for yet another amazing solar breakthrough that will get buried like the rest of them [ caltech.edu ] was from a few days ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to disappoint, I only do journal entries, not front page submissions.
You would have gotten your fix sooner.
This link for yet another  amazing solar breakthrough that will get buried like the rest of them [caltech.edu] was from a few days ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245466</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266945780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the efficiency of the system could be scaled up without any additional, unforeseen limitations</p></div><p>No</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the efficiency of the system could be scaled up without any additional , unforeseen limitationsNo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the efficiency of the system could be scaled up without any additional, unforeseen limitationsNo
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31252492</id>
	<title>Re:TFA uses Bad Math!</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1266928020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that 1353 W/m^2 number for all solar radiation across the entire electro-magnetic spectrum?  Is it for the visible light spectrum?  Is is for some subset of the visible light spectrum?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that 1353 W/m ^ 2 number for all solar radiation across the entire electro-magnetic spectrum ?
Is it for the visible light spectrum ?
Is is for some subset of the visible light spectrum ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that 1353 W/m^2 number for all solar radiation across the entire electro-magnetic spectrum?
Is it for the visible light spectrum?
Is is for some subset of the visible light spectrum?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247158</id>
	<title>Tro7l</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">prima 3onnas, and</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>prima 3onnas , and [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>prima 3onnas, and [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245596</id>
	<title>WOW!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266946500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA isn't particularly enlightning, but the news is indeed slashdot worthy but raises many questions.</p><p><i>While not currently aimed at solar panel technology</i></p><p>Why not?</p><p><i>their research has uncovered a way to turn optical radiation into electrical current that could lead to self-powering molecular circuits</i></p><p>Battery-free gizmos? It doesn't say, but it seems like the photons wouldn't have to be optical wavelengths. However, how much current does this tech produce? "we could conceivably manufacture a 1A, 1V sample the diameter of a human hair and an inch long"</p><p>WOW, that's a lot of power from a tinty surface. 1 amp at one volt is one watt; a device using this tech the size of a phone battery could run an air conditioner if there were any way to keep the thing from melting.</p><p>At the end of TFA it links the <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn901148m" title="acs.org">study</a> [acs.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA is n't particularly enlightning , but the news is indeed slashdot worthy but raises many questions.While not currently aimed at solar panel technologyWhy not ? their research has uncovered a way to turn optical radiation into electrical current that could lead to self-powering molecular circuitsBattery-free gizmos ?
It does n't say , but it seems like the photons would n't have to be optical wavelengths .
However , how much current does this tech produce ?
" we could conceivably manufacture a 1A , 1V sample the diameter of a human hair and an inch long " WOW , that 's a lot of power from a tinty surface .
1 amp at one volt is one watt ; a device using this tech the size of a phone battery could run an air conditioner if there were any way to keep the thing from melting.At the end of TFA it links the study [ acs.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA isn't particularly enlightning, but the news is indeed slashdot worthy but raises many questions.While not currently aimed at solar panel technologyWhy not?their research has uncovered a way to turn optical radiation into electrical current that could lead to self-powering molecular circuitsBattery-free gizmos?
It doesn't say, but it seems like the photons wouldn't have to be optical wavelengths.
However, how much current does this tech produce?
"we could conceivably manufacture a 1A, 1V sample the diameter of a human hair and an inch long"WOW, that's a lot of power from a tinty surface.
1 amp at one volt is one watt; a device using this tech the size of a phone battery could run an air conditioner if there were any way to keep the thing from melting.At the end of TFA it links the study [acs.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31265474</id>
	<title>Re:Get with the program, editors!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265108940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That&rsquo;s only reserved for sneaky Apple Slashvertisements! ^^</p><p>(Seriously, go search for articles containing &ldquo;Apple&rdquo;, &ldquo;iPhone&rdquo; or &ldquo;iPad&rdquo; on Slashdot. You won&rsquo;t find a week without at least one, and up to 7 of &rsquo;em.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s only reserved for sneaky Apple Slashvertisements !
^ ^ ( Seriously , go search for articles containing    Apple    ,    iPhone    or    iPad    on Slashdot .
You won    t find a week without at least one , and up to 7 of    em .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s only reserved for sneaky Apple Slashvertisements!
^^(Seriously, go search for articles containing “Apple”, “iPhone” or “iPad” on Slashdot.
You won’t find a week without at least one, and up to 7 of ’em.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247310</id>
	<title>Re:TFA uses Bad Math!</title>
	<author>pushing-robot</author>
	<datestamp>1266952260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The researchers also applied for a patent on an intriguing device which takes advantage of silicon dioxide's curious ability to <i>reduce the speed of light</i> as photons pass through it, and can, in certain configurations, be exploited to redirect light or even concentrate it in a small area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers also applied for a patent on an intriguing device which takes advantage of silicon dioxide 's curious ability to reduce the speed of light as photons pass through it , and can , in certain configurations , be exploited to redirect light or even concentrate it in a small area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers also applied for a patent on an intriguing device which takes advantage of silicon dioxide's curious ability to reduce the speed of light as photons pass through it, and can, in certain configurations, be exploited to redirect light or even concentrate it in a small area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31248396</id>
	<title>Re:Get with the program, editors!</title>
	<author>thomst</author>
	<datestamp>1266956160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it hasn't.</p><p>I submitted <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1174718/Thin-Film-Solar-Cells---Here-We-Go-Again?art\_pos=3" title="slashdot.org">this story</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p> on February 17, but no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. editor seemed to think it worthy of publication.</p><p>Frankly, I think they're all do-do heads<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it has n't.I submitted this story [ slashdot.org ] on February 17 , but no / .
editor seemed to think it worthy of publication.Frankly , I think they 're all do-do heads .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it hasn't.I submitted this story [slashdot.org] on February 17, but no /.
editor seemed to think it worthy of publication.Frankly, I think they're all do-do heads ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245602</id>
	<title>Plasmons Surfing ...</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1266946500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They create surface plasmons that ride the surface of gold nanoparticles on a glass substrate.</p> </div><p>Boy, does <i>that</i> take me back to my days in the college dorms<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  good times.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They create surface plasmons that ride the surface of gold nanoparticles on a glass substrate .
Boy , does that take me back to my days in the college dorms ... good times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They create surface plasmons that ride the surface of gold nanoparticles on a glass substrate.
Boy, does that take me back to my days in the college dorms ...  good times.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31249202</id>
	<title>The Matrix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266958380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this technology the reason that we need to scorch the sky in the future. Let's not allow the matrix to take over. &#166;:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this technology the reason that we need to scorch the sky in the future .
Let 's not allow the matrix to take over .
  :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this technology the reason that we need to scorch the sky in the future.
Let's not allow the matrix to take over.
¦:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246380</id>
	<title>Simple Maths Are Hard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266949140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>current production by a factor of <b>four to 20,</b></p> </div><p>
AKA: One to five.
<br> <br>
And while I am being pedantic, let's discuss consistency. Proper grammar, so far as I recall, requests that you use a consistent numerical format when writing. If you want to say 20, say 4 as well. If you want to  say four, say twenty as well. "Four to 20," just looks like some kind of bastardized wretch that a high school student coughed up on a rushed writing assignment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>current production by a factor of four to 20 , AKA : One to five .
And while I am being pedantic , let 's discuss consistency .
Proper grammar , so far as I recall , requests that you use a consistent numerical format when writing .
If you want to say 20 , say 4 as well .
If you want to say four , say twenty as well .
" Four to 20 , " just looks like some kind of bastardized wretch that a high school student coughed up on a rushed writing assignment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>current production by a factor of four to 20, 
AKA: One to five.
And while I am being pedantic, let's discuss consistency.
Proper grammar, so far as I recall, requests that you use a consistent numerical format when writing.
If you want to say 20, say 4 as well.
If you want to  say four, say twenty as well.
"Four to 20," just looks like some kind of bastardized wretch that a high school student coughed up on a rushed writing assignment.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31265584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31252492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31265474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31255858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31251140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31250282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31248082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1545204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31248396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1545204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1545204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1545204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31255858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31265584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1545204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1545204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31248396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31248082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31265474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1545204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1545204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31246992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31252492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31247310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31250282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1545204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31245970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1545204.31251140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
