<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_01_1859223</id>
	<title>Laser Blast Makes Regular Light Bulbs Super-Efficient</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1243845600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://eviatsmokingcube.be/" rel="nofollow">guruevi</a> writes with news that a process using an ultra-powerful laser can <a href="http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3385">crank up the efficiency of everyday incandescent light bulbs</a>.  Using the same laser process <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/06/11/23/231259/Laser-Turns-All-Metals-Black">covered several years ago</a>, the tungsten filament has an array of nano- and micro-scale structures formed on the surface making the resulting light as bright as a 100-watt bulb while consuming less electricity than a 60-watt bulb and remaining much cheaper to produce.  <i>"The key to creating the super-filament is an ultra-brief, ultra-intense beam of light called a femtosecond laser pulse. The laser burst lasts only a few quadrillionths of a second. To get a grasp of that kind of speed, consider that a femtosecond is to a second what a second is to about 32 million years. During its brief burst, Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point. That intense blast forces the surface of the metal to form nanostructures and microstructures that dramatically alter how efficiently light can radiate from the filament."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>guruevi writes with news that a process using an ultra-powerful laser can crank up the efficiency of everyday incandescent light bulbs .
Using the same laser process covered several years ago , the tungsten filament has an array of nano- and micro-scale structures formed on the surface making the resulting light as bright as a 100-watt bulb while consuming less electricity than a 60-watt bulb and remaining much cheaper to produce .
" The key to creating the super-filament is an ultra-brief , ultra-intense beam of light called a femtosecond laser pulse .
The laser burst lasts only a few quadrillionths of a second .
To get a grasp of that kind of speed , consider that a femtosecond is to a second what a second is to about 32 million years .
During its brief burst , Guo 's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point .
That intense blast forces the surface of the metal to form nanostructures and microstructures that dramatically alter how efficiently light can radiate from the filament .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>guruevi writes with news that a process using an ultra-powerful laser can crank up the efficiency of everyday incandescent light bulbs.
Using the same laser process covered several years ago, the tungsten filament has an array of nano- and micro-scale structures formed on the surface making the resulting light as bright as a 100-watt bulb while consuming less electricity than a 60-watt bulb and remaining much cheaper to produce.
"The key to creating the super-filament is an ultra-brief, ultra-intense beam of light called a femtosecond laser pulse.
The laser burst lasts only a few quadrillionths of a second.
To get a grasp of that kind of speed, consider that a femtosecond is to a second what a second is to about 32 million years.
During its brief burst, Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point.
That intense blast forces the surface of the metal to form nanostructures and microstructures that dramatically alter how efficiently light can radiate from the filament.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28183313</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation (of electricity) is a red herring</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243961100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're doing it wrong. What we should be working on is lowering the population.</p><p>The Japanese had the right idea from the start. Now start working on a mutated giant lizard to go on world-wide rampage!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're doing it wrong .
What we should be working on is lowering the population.The Japanese had the right idea from the start .
Now start working on a mutated giant lizard to go on world-wide rampage !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're doing it wrong.
What we should be working on is lowering the population.The Japanese had the right idea from the start.
Now start working on a mutated giant lizard to go on world-wide rampage!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173459</id>
	<title>Re:High-efficeiency incandescent bulbs</title>
	<author>freedumb2000</author>
	<datestamp>1243849920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same in europe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same in europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same in europe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173481</id>
	<title>Re:High-efficeiency incandescent bulbs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243850040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, they still suck compared to true high effecency bulbs so it's no great loss.  In this case HE incandecent is bassicly the same as the smartest retard in the room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , they still suck compared to true high effecency bulbs so it 's no great loss .
In this case HE incandecent is bassicly the same as the smartest retard in the room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, they still suck compared to true high effecency bulbs so it's no great loss.
In this case HE incandecent is bassicly the same as the smartest retard in the room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28190021</id>
	<title>super-efficient? not by modern standards</title>
	<author>alizard</author>
	<datestamp>1243948200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My 22W CFLs are considered 100W incandescent-equivalent, and good white LED lamps designed for regular light sockets are slightly better. And LEDs are being improved.
<br> <br>If I understand the press release correctly, 60 watts in for the equivalent of 100W incandescent out is the <i>theoretical maximum</i> for this technology.
<br> <br>Making this a non-starter for general illumination needs, particularly as US Federal law says that the incandescent is going to become unavailable for general lighting in any case.
<br> <br>However, the filterless pure color and polarized light possibilities suggest this device has a great future in specialized industrial, scientific, and even theatrical lighting uses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My 22W CFLs are considered 100W incandescent-equivalent , and good white LED lamps designed for regular light sockets are slightly better .
And LEDs are being improved .
If I understand the press release correctly , 60 watts in for the equivalent of 100W incandescent out is the theoretical maximum for this technology .
Making this a non-starter for general illumination needs , particularly as US Federal law says that the incandescent is going to become unavailable for general lighting in any case .
However , the filterless pure color and polarized light possibilities suggest this device has a great future in specialized industrial , scientific , and even theatrical lighting uses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 22W CFLs are considered 100W incandescent-equivalent, and good white LED lamps designed for regular light sockets are slightly better.
And LEDs are being improved.
If I understand the press release correctly, 60 watts in for the equivalent of 100W incandescent out is the theoretical maximum for this technology.
Making this a non-starter for general illumination needs, particularly as US Federal law says that the incandescent is going to become unavailable for general lighting in any case.
However, the filterless pure color and polarized light possibilities suggest this device has a great future in specialized industrial, scientific, and even theatrical lighting uses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177179</id>
	<title>femto- is an SI prefix.</title>
	<author>NevDull</author>
	<datestamp>1243872180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't a femtosecond thus technically a standard unit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't a femtosecond thus technically a standard unit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't a femtosecond thus technically a standard unit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176597</id>
	<title>Re:FFS use standard units.</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1243867380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is the might Slash.  We can understand proper units.</p><p>Femto = 10^-15</p></div><p>Which is a lot smaller than 1/32 million.  Not only did the comparison insult our intelligence, but it was wrong, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the might Slash .
We can understand proper units.Femto = 10 ^ -15Which is a lot smaller than 1/32 million .
Not only did the comparison insult our intelligence , but it was wrong , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the might Slash.
We can understand proper units.Femto = 10^-15Which is a lot smaller than 1/32 million.
Not only did the comparison insult our intelligence, but it was wrong, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177909</id>
	<title>I hope they zap LEDs and electroluminescent film</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243879560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Changing surfaces like this with brute force is interesting.</p><p>Once they figure out what works, it ought to be possible to grow the material into equally complicated structures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Changing surfaces like this with brute force is interesting.Once they figure out what works , it ought to be possible to grow the material into equally complicated structures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Changing surfaces like this with brute force is interesting.Once they figure out what works, it ought to be possible to grow the material into equally complicated structures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28184047</id>
	<title>Ultimately pointless "savings"?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1243964400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds to me like they use up the entire potential energy savings of the device in the process of manufacturing it.</p><p>I'm finally getting around to responding to this because Slashdot finally got around to fixing their RSS feed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds to me like they use up the entire potential energy savings of the device in the process of manufacturing it.I 'm finally getting around to responding to this because Slashdot finally got around to fixing their RSS feed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds to me like they use up the entire potential energy savings of the device in the process of manufacturing it.I'm finally getting around to responding to this because Slashdot finally got around to fixing their RSS feed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173527</id>
	<title>Re:Now I Understand Lasers</title>
	<author>bugnuts</author>
	<datestamp>1243850160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couple this thing with a few femtosharks, and my high-efficiency evil lair will be complete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Couple this thing with a few femtosharks , and my high-efficiency evil lair will be complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couple this thing with a few femtosharks, and my high-efficiency evil lair will be complete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176399</id>
	<title>Laser and hot tub</title>
	<author>kentsin</author>
	<datestamp>1243865580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some day one special laser can turn cigaraet to something much better. A hot tub can turn a criminal into god.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some day one special laser can turn cigaraet to something much better .
A hot tub can turn a criminal into god .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some day one special laser can turn cigaraet to something much better.
A hot tub can turn a criminal into god.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28178611</id>
	<title>Lifespan</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1243974000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see no mention in the article on how long the resulting bulbs would last.<br><br>The process might make the bulb brighter but shorten the lifespan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see no mention in the article on how long the resulting bulbs would last.The process might make the bulb brighter but shorten the lifespan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see no mention in the article on how long the resulting bulbs would last.The process might make the bulb brighter but shorten the lifespan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173229</id>
	<title>Now I Understand Lasers</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1243849260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Laser Blast Makes Regular Light Bulbs Super-Efficient</p></div><p>So that whole time in Star Wars, they were just trying to make each other Super-Efficient?  That's a whole lot nicer than what I was led to believe was initially going on.  <br> <br>LASIK makes a lot more sense now too.  <br> <br>I'm learning!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laser Blast Makes Regular Light Bulbs Super-EfficientSo that whole time in Star Wars , they were just trying to make each other Super-Efficient ?
That 's a whole lot nicer than what I was led to believe was initially going on .
LASIK makes a lot more sense now too .
I 'm learning !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laser Blast Makes Regular Light Bulbs Super-EfficientSo that whole time in Star Wars, they were just trying to make each other Super-Efficient?
That's a whole lot nicer than what I was led to believe was initially going on.
LASIK makes a lot more sense now too.
I'm learning!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175405</id>
	<title>an added bonus</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1243858440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I remember reading somewhere that incandescent bulbs are made somewhere in America -- Tennessee?  Whereas the great majority of CFLs come from China.  If incandescent bulbs can be made significantly more efficient, and they're made locally, it sounds like a win-win to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading somewhere that incandescent bulbs are made somewhere in America -- Tennessee ?
Whereas the great majority of CFLs come from China .
If incandescent bulbs can be made significantly more efficient , and they 're made locally , it sounds like a win-win to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I remember reading somewhere that incandescent bulbs are made somewhere in America -- Tennessee?
Whereas the great majority of CFLs come from China.
If incandescent bulbs can be made significantly more efficient, and they're made locally, it sounds like a win-win to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369</id>
	<title>Super Efficient?</title>
	<author>Crazy Man on Fire</author>
	<datestamp>1243849620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Guo's laser unleashes <b>as much power as the entire grid of North America</b> onto a spot the size of a needle point.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>So, by only using as much power as the entire grid of North America, we can make a "less than 60 watt" bulb as bright as a 100 watt bulb?  Perhaps it operates more efficiently, but it doesn't sound like it is so efficient to produce.  Unless I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guo 's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point .
So , by only using as much power as the entire grid of North America , we can make a " less than 60 watt " bulb as bright as a 100 watt bulb ?
Perhaps it operates more efficiently , but it does n't sound like it is so efficient to produce .
Unless I 'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point.
So, by only using as much power as the entire grid of North America, we can make a "less than 60 watt" bulb as bright as a 100 watt bulb?
Perhaps it operates more efficiently, but it doesn't sound like it is so efficient to produce.
Unless I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177733</id>
	<title>Re:Lifetime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243877580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, now that the boomers are retiring and getting old and tired, bulb life will have to go up because we all know that what boomers want, boomers get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , now that the boomers are retiring and getting old and tired , bulb life will have to go up because we all know that what boomers want , boomers get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, now that the boomers are retiring and getting old and tired, bulb life will have to go up because we all know that what boomers want, boomers get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173517</id>
	<title>Re:Super Efficient?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243850160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, it's lots of power, but only for thousandths of a millionth of a millionth of a second. So it really isn't so much energy afterall.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it 's lots of power , but only for thousandths of a millionth of a millionth of a second .
So it really is n't so much energy afterall.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it's lots of power, but only for thousandths of a millionth of a millionth of a second.
So it really isn't so much energy afterall.dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28183291</id>
	<title>Too Little Too Late.. Wul, Maybe</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1243961040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incandescent bulbs? We already have fluorescent! Lets concentrate on making LED brighter and more efficient.<br>Honestly SEWilco, I do need incandescent tho. I produce heat with them to bend wood on a jig for guitars.<br>When incandescents are illegal, only outlaws will be luthiers.<br>
&nbsp; I guess I will have to stock up a few years supply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incandescent bulbs ?
We already have fluorescent !
Lets concentrate on making LED brighter and more efficient.Honestly SEWilco , I do need incandescent tho .
I produce heat with them to bend wood on a jig for guitars.When incandescents are illegal , only outlaws will be luthiers .
  I guess I will have to stock up a few years supply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incandescent bulbs?
We already have fluorescent!
Lets concentrate on making LED brighter and more efficient.Honestly SEWilco, I do need incandescent tho.
I produce heat with them to bend wood on a jig for guitars.When incandescents are illegal, only outlaws will be luthiers.
  I guess I will have to stock up a few years supply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28180521</id>
	<title>Re:Too late</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1243949640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the light out of fluorescent bulbs</p></div><p>Yes, pick bulbs with color temp and CRI that match what you want to light.  My wife and I painted a room, but didn't like the color when lit with regular incandescent bulbs.  I switch to 5000K CFLs and the room looks great.  (More like daylight)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the light out of fluorescent bulbsYes , pick bulbs with color temp and CRI that match what you want to light .
My wife and I painted a room , but did n't like the color when lit with regular incandescent bulbs .
I switch to 5000K CFLs and the room looks great .
( More like daylight )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the light out of fluorescent bulbsYes, pick bulbs with color temp and CRI that match what you want to light.
My wife and I painted a room, but didn't like the color when lit with regular incandescent bulbs.
I switch to 5000K CFLs and the room looks great.
(More like daylight)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174393</id>
	<title>How long?</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1243853460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The laser burst lasts only a few quadrillionths of a second.</i>
<br> <br>
Ah, thanks, I was wondering how long a <b>femtosecond</b> laser pulse lasts for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The laser burst lasts only a few quadrillionths of a second .
Ah , thanks , I was wondering how long a femtosecond laser pulse lasts for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The laser burst lasts only a few quadrillionths of a second.
Ah, thanks, I was wondering how long a femtosecond laser pulse lasts for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174511</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation (of electricity) is a red herring</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243854000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's only so much sunlight hitting the earth, therefore there is a limited amount of renewable energy to harvest. Eventually, we will run up against that wall. Conservation isn't a red herring, it's mandatory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only so much sunlight hitting the earth , therefore there is a limited amount of renewable energy to harvest .
Eventually , we will run up against that wall .
Conservation is n't a red herring , it 's mandatory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only so much sunlight hitting the earth, therefore there is a limited amount of renewable energy to harvest.
Eventually, we will run up against that wall.
Conservation isn't a red herring, it's mandatory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173433</id>
	<title>Energy Savings?</title>
	<author>dhall</author>
	<datestamp>1243849860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many lightbulbs would they need to convert from 100W to 60W usage (over time) to equal the energy cost of 1 femto second laser blast that <i>"unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America"</i>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many lightbulbs would they need to convert from 100W to 60W usage ( over time ) to equal the energy cost of 1 femto second laser blast that " unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many lightbulbs would they need to convert from 100W to 60W usage (over time) to equal the energy cost of 1 femto second laser blast that "unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175223</id>
	<title>RFI</title>
	<author>Nonillion</author>
	<datestamp>1243857420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing I hate most about CFL bulbs is the radio interference they create. I get enough RFI in my area from dimmers, touch lamps, CFL lamps, switching mode battery chargers, plasma TV's, computers, monitors, yard lights and the controllers in LED lamps! Any method to perpetuating good old incandescent lamps is welcome news to me. If you could see the RF pollution that radiates off consumer electronic devices (not to mention the power grid) you would SHIT your pants!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing I hate most about CFL bulbs is the radio interference they create .
I get enough RFI in my area from dimmers , touch lamps , CFL lamps , switching mode battery chargers , plasma TV 's , computers , monitors , yard lights and the controllers in LED lamps !
Any method to perpetuating good old incandescent lamps is welcome news to me .
If you could see the RF pollution that radiates off consumer electronic devices ( not to mention the power grid ) you would SHIT your pants !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing I hate most about CFL bulbs is the radio interference they create.
I get enough RFI in my area from dimmers, touch lamps, CFL lamps, switching mode battery chargers, plasma TV's, computers, monitors, yard lights and the controllers in LED lamps!
Any method to perpetuating good old incandescent lamps is welcome news to me.
If you could see the RF pollution that radiates off consumer electronic devices (not to mention the power grid) you would SHIT your pants!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176645</id>
	<title>so.......gun shooting will not be the case anymore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>coz every home got a laser blaster<br>XD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>coz every home got a laser blasterXD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coz every home got a laser blasterXD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173291</id>
	<title>High-efficeiency incandescent bulbs</title>
	<author>Verteiron</author>
	<datestamp>1243849440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it doesn't matter (at least to those of us in the USA), because in 2014 incandescent bulbs will be banned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it does n't matter ( at least to those of us in the USA ) , because in 2014 incandescent bulbs will be banned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it doesn't matter (at least to those of us in the USA), because in 2014 incandescent bulbs will be banned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174949</id>
	<title>Wait a sec!</title>
	<author>psbrogna</author>
	<datestamp>1243855980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point."
<br>
Hmmm... that just reads funny. Will the cost of the power equivalent of the entire North American grid for a femto-second be built into the cost of the light bulb? That sounds expensive.
<br>
I'm sure I'm overlooking something. I usually do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Guo 's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point .
" Hmmm... that just reads funny .
Will the cost of the power equivalent of the entire North American grid for a femto-second be built into the cost of the light bulb ?
That sounds expensive .
I 'm sure I 'm overlooking something .
I usually do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point.
"

Hmmm... that just reads funny.
Will the cost of the power equivalent of the entire North American grid for a femto-second be built into the cost of the light bulb?
That sounds expensive.
I'm sure I'm overlooking something.
I usually do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363</id>
	<title>Too late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too late: Compact fluorescent lamps require about 20W for the same light output as a 100W incadescent.<br>
And live longer too.<br>
<br>
Yes, their light used to look shitty, but these times are over now as well - if you don't buy the cheapest<br>
there are, the light out of fluorescent bulbs is perfectly fine. And LED "bulbs" may soon be there too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too late : Compact fluorescent lamps require about 20W for the same light output as a 100W incadescent .
And live longer too .
Yes , their light used to look shitty , but these times are over now as well - if you do n't buy the cheapest there are , the light out of fluorescent bulbs is perfectly fine .
And LED " bulbs " may soon be there too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too late: Compact fluorescent lamps require about 20W for the same light output as a 100W incadescent.
And live longer too.
Yes, their light used to look shitty, but these times are over now as well - if you don't buy the cheapest
there are, the light out of fluorescent bulbs is perfectly fine.
And LED "bulbs" may soon be there too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174417</id>
	<title>Re:And they will hit the shelves in...</title>
	<author>wsanders</author>
	<datestamp>1243853580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the National Ignition Facility fails to produce usable fusion, we can at least use it for this.</p><p>Or just buy compact fluorescent bulbs at WalMart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the National Ignition Facility fails to produce usable fusion , we can at least use it for this.Or just buy compact fluorescent bulbs at WalMart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the National Ignition Facility fails to produce usable fusion, we can at least use it for this.Or just buy compact fluorescent bulbs at WalMart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28179545</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation (of electricity) is a red herring</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1243941360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep your eye in the target: the ultimate objective is to increase our quality of life, both in the short term and in the long term.</p><p>This is why some "extreme" ecologists that defend a "back to our roots", technology-less approach are crackpots (although the underlying concept of realigning our measures of quality of life from money/goods to personal-satisfaction has a deeper wisdom than most people seem to realize).</p><p>This is also why the "extreme" reject all conservation measures just "because!" are crackpots: why reject something that does not decrease your short term quality of life while increasing your long term quality of life out of principle (like using energy efficient lamps instead of the more wasteful kind)?</p><p>There is quite a lot of room for logical, informed discussion in the middle ground: the situations where there is a balance between giving up quality of life on the short term for the possibility of increased/sustained quality of life in the long term (for example, the whole greenhouse gases discussion). On the other hand outright rejecting win-now and win-later or pushing loose-now and loose-later approaches is just ideological bias.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep your eye in the target : the ultimate objective is to increase our quality of life , both in the short term and in the long term.This is why some " extreme " ecologists that defend a " back to our roots " , technology-less approach are crackpots ( although the underlying concept of realigning our measures of quality of life from money/goods to personal-satisfaction has a deeper wisdom than most people seem to realize ) .This is also why the " extreme " reject all conservation measures just " because !
" are crackpots : why reject something that does not decrease your short term quality of life while increasing your long term quality of life out of principle ( like using energy efficient lamps instead of the more wasteful kind ) ? There is quite a lot of room for logical , informed discussion in the middle ground : the situations where there is a balance between giving up quality of life on the short term for the possibility of increased/sustained quality of life in the long term ( for example , the whole greenhouse gases discussion ) .
On the other hand outright rejecting win-now and win-later or pushing loose-now and loose-later approaches is just ideological bias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep your eye in the target: the ultimate objective is to increase our quality of life, both in the short term and in the long term.This is why some "extreme" ecologists that defend a "back to our roots", technology-less approach are crackpots (although the underlying concept of realigning our measures of quality of life from money/goods to personal-satisfaction has a deeper wisdom than most people seem to realize).This is also why the "extreme" reject all conservation measures just "because!
" are crackpots: why reject something that does not decrease your short term quality of life while increasing your long term quality of life out of principle (like using energy efficient lamps instead of the more wasteful kind)?There is quite a lot of room for logical, informed discussion in the middle ground: the situations where there is a balance between giving up quality of life on the short term for the possibility of increased/sustained quality of life in the long term (for example, the whole greenhouse gases discussion).
On the other hand outright rejecting win-now and win-later or pushing loose-now and loose-later approaches is just ideological bias.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28186303</id>
	<title>"consuming less electricity than a 60-watt bulb"</title>
	<author>Gnavpot</author>
	<datestamp>1243973940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would that be the same as "consuming less than 60 watt"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would that be the same as " consuming less than 60 watt " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would that be the same as "consuming less than 60 watt"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173377</id>
	<title>Too Bad. Too Late.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, so you can have the "right" light and efficiency as well! Too bad they outlawed incandescent bulbs.</p><p>Care for another cup of mercury under the crappy flickering light?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , so you can have the " right " light and efficiency as well !
Too bad they outlawed incandescent bulbs.Care for another cup of mercury under the crappy flickering light ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, so you can have the "right" light and efficiency as well!
Too bad they outlawed incandescent bulbs.Care for another cup of mercury under the crappy flickering light?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173399</id>
	<title>Lifetime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But long does the lamp last?  It's easy to make an incandescent lamp more efficient.  You just crank up the filament temp, but then your lifetime goes to pot.  Lamps last 1000 hours because that's how frequently consumers are willing to unscrew and rescrew their bulbs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But long does the lamp last ?
It 's easy to make an incandescent lamp more efficient .
You just crank up the filament temp , but then your lifetime goes to pot .
Lamps last 1000 hours because that 's how frequently consumers are willing to unscrew and rescrew their bulbs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But long does the lamp last?
It's easy to make an incandescent lamp more efficient.
You just crank up the filament temp, but then your lifetime goes to pot.
Lamps last 1000 hours because that's how frequently consumers are willing to unscrew and rescrew their bulbs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28185249</id>
	<title>Re:Energy Savings?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243969320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's make it 5. Find me a female slashdotter and we'll screw while the other 3 change the light bulb. Can't say we'll be paying much attention to the femtosecond lecturer, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's make it 5 .
Find me a female slashdotter and we 'll screw while the other 3 change the light bulb .
Ca n't say we 'll be paying much attention to the femtosecond lecturer , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's make it 5.
Find me a female slashdotter and we'll screw while the other 3 change the light bulb.
Can't say we'll be paying much attention to the femtosecond lecturer, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173613</id>
	<title>Re:Super Efficient?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243850580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Perhaps it operates more efficiently, but it doesn't sound like it is so efficient to produce. Unless I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary.</i> </p><p>You forgot that femtosecond part.  The usage of the whole USA grid is for an incredibly tiny fraction of a second, 10^15 of a second.  The USA grid is 4x10^15 watts.  So really, if you want to translate it into a more sane energy understanding, its about <b>4 Watt seconds/pulse</b> to do this.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it operates more efficiently , but it does n't sound like it is so efficient to produce .
Unless I 'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary .
You forgot that femtosecond part .
The usage of the whole USA grid is for an incredibly tiny fraction of a second , 10 ^ 15 of a second .
The USA grid is 4x10 ^ 15 watts .
So really , if you want to translate it into a more sane energy understanding , its about 4 Watt seconds/pulse to do this.Fixed that for you</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Perhaps it operates more efficiently, but it doesn't sound like it is so efficient to produce.
Unless I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary.
You forgot that femtosecond part.
The usage of the whole USA grid is for an incredibly tiny fraction of a second, 10^15 of a second.
The USA grid is 4x10^15 watts.
So really, if you want to translate it into a more sane energy understanding, its about 4 Watt seconds/pulse to do this.Fixed that for you
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174391</id>
	<title>Re:Now I Understand Lasers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243853460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, that is funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , that is funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, that is funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173581</id>
	<title>Yay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243850340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No more of this Florescent crap</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No more of this Florescent crap</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No more of this Florescent crap</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173627</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243850580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>by unleashing "as much power as the entire grid of North America" we save 40 watts per bulb...</p><p>*golf clap*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by unleashing " as much power as the entire grid of North America " we save 40 watts per bulb... * golf clap *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by unleashing "as much power as the entire grid of North America" we save 40 watts per bulb...*golf clap*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173455</id>
	<title>As much power as the US grid..?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a femtosecond blast of the laser "unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America," why don't we use the blessed thing to power that grid?<br>Or is it also taking in "as much power as the entire grid of North America" to create that blast? (I would never suggest breaking the law, even laws of physics!)<br>And what does "as much power as the entire grid of North America" mean, anyway? As much power as is in the grid right now? Over the span of a day..? a year...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a femtosecond blast of the laser " unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America , " why do n't we use the blessed thing to power that grid ? Or is it also taking in " as much power as the entire grid of North America " to create that blast ?
( I would never suggest breaking the law , even laws of physics !
) And what does " as much power as the entire grid of North America " mean , anyway ?
As much power as is in the grid right now ?
Over the span of a day.. ?
a year... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a femtosecond blast of the laser "unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America," why don't we use the blessed thing to power that grid?Or is it also taking in "as much power as the entire grid of North America" to create that blast?
(I would never suggest breaking the law, even laws of physics!
)And what does "as much power as the entire grid of North America" mean, anyway?
As much power as is in the grid right now?
Over the span of a day..?
a year...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176289</id>
	<title>I'll go you one better</title>
	<author>rfc1394</author>
	<datestamp>1243864860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now, a typical 100 watt incandescent light bulb lasts, oh, 500-1000 hours, costs about 25c and uses, of course, 100 watts.</p><p>
I am currently using a 23 watt compact fluorescent light bulb, which produces the same amount of light, and because of economies of scale has gotten down to 12 times the price of an incandescent, about $3.75 and supposedly will last as much as 10,000 hours. On total cost if you include electricity, a CF is going to be less expensive long term.</p><p>
But the best deal so far, if the numbers are correct, is the LED light bulb, which unfortunately is about 8 times as expensive as a compact fluorescent at about $8.00, but the electricity numbers are shocking (pun unintentional).  The $8 bulb will presumably run about as long as a CF, and produce about the equivalent of 100 watts of light, and do so on ONE WATT.  If the LED can produce the same lumens for 1\% of the electrical cost and 10 times the operating life, it would be hands down the best bargain in net total costs even though it's basically about 64 times as expensive for the bulb as the Incandescent.  Presuming a cost of 6c per KWH, an incandescent will burn $6 worth of electricity at 100 hours, while the CF would have burned $2 and the LED would have burned 6c.  For the expected lifetimes, that is, 10 Incandescent bulbs or 1 CF or LED, the costs would be as follows.</p><ul> <li>Incandescent, $2.50 for bulbs, $60 worth of electricity, $62.50</li><li>CF, $3.75 for bulb, $20 worth of electricity, $23.75</li><li><p>LED, $8 for bulb, 60c worth of electricity, $8.60</p></li> </ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , a typical 100 watt incandescent light bulb lasts , oh , 500-1000 hours , costs about 25c and uses , of course , 100 watts .
I am currently using a 23 watt compact fluorescent light bulb , which produces the same amount of light , and because of economies of scale has gotten down to 12 times the price of an incandescent , about $ 3.75 and supposedly will last as much as 10,000 hours .
On total cost if you include electricity , a CF is going to be less expensive long term .
But the best deal so far , if the numbers are correct , is the LED light bulb , which unfortunately is about 8 times as expensive as a compact fluorescent at about $ 8.00 , but the electricity numbers are shocking ( pun unintentional ) .
The $ 8 bulb will presumably run about as long as a CF , and produce about the equivalent of 100 watts of light , and do so on ONE WATT .
If the LED can produce the same lumens for 1 \ % of the electrical cost and 10 times the operating life , it would be hands down the best bargain in net total costs even though it 's basically about 64 times as expensive for the bulb as the Incandescent .
Presuming a cost of 6c per KWH , an incandescent will burn $ 6 worth of electricity at 100 hours , while the CF would have burned $ 2 and the LED would have burned 6c .
For the expected lifetimes , that is , 10 Incandescent bulbs or 1 CF or LED , the costs would be as follows .
Incandescent , $ 2.50 for bulbs , $ 60 worth of electricity , $ 62.50CF , $ 3.75 for bulb , $ 20 worth of electricity , $ 23.75LED , $ 8 for bulb , 60c worth of electricity , $ 8.60</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, a typical 100 watt incandescent light bulb lasts, oh, 500-1000 hours, costs about 25c and uses, of course, 100 watts.
I am currently using a 23 watt compact fluorescent light bulb, which produces the same amount of light, and because of economies of scale has gotten down to 12 times the price of an incandescent, about $3.75 and supposedly will last as much as 10,000 hours.
On total cost if you include electricity, a CF is going to be less expensive long term.
But the best deal so far, if the numbers are correct, is the LED light bulb, which unfortunately is about 8 times as expensive as a compact fluorescent at about $8.00, but the electricity numbers are shocking (pun unintentional).
The $8 bulb will presumably run about as long as a CF, and produce about the equivalent of 100 watts of light, and do so on ONE WATT.
If the LED can produce the same lumens for 1\% of the electrical cost and 10 times the operating life, it would be hands down the best bargain in net total costs even though it's basically about 64 times as expensive for the bulb as the Incandescent.
Presuming a cost of 6c per KWH, an incandescent will burn $6 worth of electricity at 100 hours, while the CF would have burned $2 and the LED would have burned 6c.
For the expected lifetimes, that is, 10 Incandescent bulbs or 1 CF or LED, the costs would be as follows.
Incandescent, $2.50 for bulbs, $60 worth of electricity, $62.50CF, $3.75 for bulb, $20 worth of electricity, $23.75LED, $8 for bulb, 60c worth of electricity, $8.60 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28189053</id>
	<title>Re:And they will hit the shelves in...</title>
	<author>uncoveror</author>
	<datestamp>1243942680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There will be some kind of conspiracy that keeps them off the shelves, like the one against <a href="http://www.uncoveror.com/nukebulbs.htm" title="uncoveror.com">nuclear light bulbs.</a> [uncoveror.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be some kind of conspiracy that keeps them off the shelves , like the one against nuclear light bulbs .
[ uncoveror.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will be some kind of conspiracy that keeps them off the shelves, like the one against nuclear light bulbs.
[uncoveror.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173721</id>
	<title>Re:Super Efficient?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243851000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idiot.</p><p>USA used 29000 TWh 2005. Equals 3.3 TW mean usage.</p><p>1 femtosecond times 3.3 TW<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/(3600/10^-15 femtoseconds per hour) equals 9 * 10^-10 Watt hours.</p><p>I will not go into a calculation in how many microseconds you have earned that energy if the bulb produces 66\% more light.</p><p>Please respect energy balances and keep things in perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiot.USA used 29000 TWh 2005 .
Equals 3.3 TW mean usage.1 femtosecond times 3.3 TW / ( 3600/10 ^ -15 femtoseconds per hour ) equals 9 * 10 ^ -10 Watt hours.I will not go into a calculation in how many microseconds you have earned that energy if the bulb produces 66 \ % more light.Please respect energy balances and keep things in perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiot.USA used 29000 TWh 2005.
Equals 3.3 TW mean usage.1 femtosecond times 3.3 TW /(3600/10^-15 femtoseconds per hour) equals 9 * 10^-10 Watt hours.I will not go into a calculation in how many microseconds you have earned that energy if the bulb produces 66\% more light.Please respect energy balances and keep things in perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174335</id>
	<title>Re:Lifetime</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1243853160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can buy 10,000-20,000 incandescents, they just cost more:<br><a href="http://www.bulbman.com/index.php?main\_page=index&amp;cPath=3863" title="bulbman.com">http://www.bulbman.com/index.php?main\_page=index&amp;cPath=3863</a> [bulbman.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can buy 10,000-20,000 incandescents , they just cost more : http : //www.bulbman.com/index.php ? main \ _page = index&amp;cPath = 3863 [ bulbman.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can buy 10,000-20,000 incandescents, they just cost more:http://www.bulbman.com/index.php?main\_page=index&amp;cPath=3863 [bulbman.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175489</id>
	<title>Raises The Hair On Your Neck:</title>
	<author>curmudgeon99</author>
	<datestamp>1243858800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a fantastically obscure process, and I am wondering if I am the only one who thought: alien technology?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a fantastically obscure process , and I am wondering if I am the only one who thought : alien technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a fantastically obscure process, and I am wondering if I am the only one who thought: alien technology?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177563</id>
	<title>Re:Lifetime</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1243875600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, what about filament evaporation? Apparently it continually evaporates and condenses, making the filament become thin in some spots (thinner = hotter = more evaporation = even thinner). And since it's constantly evaporating, wouldn't that mean this special surface would quickly become normal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , what about filament evaporation ?
Apparently it continually evaporates and condenses , making the filament become thin in some spots ( thinner = hotter = more evaporation = even thinner ) .
And since it 's constantly evaporating , would n't that mean this special surface would quickly become normal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, what about filament evaporation?
Apparently it continually evaporates and condenses, making the filament become thin in some spots (thinner = hotter = more evaporation = even thinner).
And since it's constantly evaporating, wouldn't that mean this special surface would quickly become normal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177333</id>
	<title>Scientific Method and Jumping to conclusions.</title>
	<author>Technician</author>
	<datestamp>1243873680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In reading the article, they noticed that when they hit a spot on the filimant, it burned brighter and jumped to all kinds of conclusions..  Something is missing..  Science.</p><p>In a series circuit, the high resistance spot will always run hotter.  Is the spot on the filimant an effecient radiator, or simply a high resistance spot because the condutor has been blasted into a high resistance structure.</p><p>Remember, this is a spot on the filimant that was noticed burning brighter and not an entire filimant.  Color temprature measurements of the spot were <b>NOT</b> taken.  Is the spot more effecient, or just hotter creating a early failure of the bulb.</p><p>The article has jumped to way too many conclusions without enough tesing to see if it is indeed effeient or just a high resistance hot spot.</p><p>Wake me up when they have the color temprature of the hot spot compared to the rest of the filimant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In reading the article , they noticed that when they hit a spot on the filimant , it burned brighter and jumped to all kinds of conclusions.. Something is missing.. Science.In a series circuit , the high resistance spot will always run hotter .
Is the spot on the filimant an effecient radiator , or simply a high resistance spot because the condutor has been blasted into a high resistance structure.Remember , this is a spot on the filimant that was noticed burning brighter and not an entire filimant .
Color temprature measurements of the spot were NOT taken .
Is the spot more effecient , or just hotter creating a early failure of the bulb.The article has jumped to way too many conclusions without enough tesing to see if it is indeed effeient or just a high resistance hot spot.Wake me up when they have the color temprature of the hot spot compared to the rest of the filimant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In reading the article, they noticed that when they hit a spot on the filimant, it burned brighter and jumped to all kinds of conclusions..  Something is missing..  Science.In a series circuit, the high resistance spot will always run hotter.
Is the spot on the filimant an effecient radiator, or simply a high resistance spot because the condutor has been blasted into a high resistance structure.Remember, this is a spot on the filimant that was noticed burning brighter and not an entire filimant.
Color temprature measurements of the spot were NOT taken.
Is the spot more effecient, or just hotter creating a early failure of the bulb.The article has jumped to way too many conclusions without enough tesing to see if it is indeed effeient or just a high resistance hot spot.Wake me up when they have the color temprature of the hot spot compared to the rest of the filimant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173833</id>
	<title>Re:Just use all the Electricity up front.</title>
	<author>Bryansix</author>
	<datestamp>1243851360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because you math is wrong? Don't worry, I failed college algebra the first time too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you math is wrong ?
Do n't worry , I failed college algebra the first time too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you math is wrong?
Don't worry, I failed college algebra the first time too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28184221</id>
	<title>"Everyday"?</title>
	<author>dwater</author>
	<datestamp>1243965060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't remember the last time I saw one of those light bulb. Do people still use them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't remember the last time I saw one of those light bulb .
Do people still use them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't remember the last time I saw one of those light bulb.
Do people still use them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28180371</id>
	<title>Re:Now I Understand Lasers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243948680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why won't this fucking meme just die already?  Austin Powers came out 12 fucking years ago.  Sharks with laser beams was marginally funny back then, and it hasn't gotten funnier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why wo n't this fucking meme just die already ?
Austin Powers came out 12 fucking years ago .
Sharks with laser beams was marginally funny back then , and it has n't gotten funnier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why won't this fucking meme just die already?
Austin Powers came out 12 fucking years ago.
Sharks with laser beams was marginally funny back then, and it hasn't gotten funnier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173249</id>
	<title>This just in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shark unemployment figures, widely considered a key indicator of the viability of the global economy, recently dropped to a mere 1\% following this announcement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shark unemployment figures , widely considered a key indicator of the viability of the global economy , recently dropped to a mere 1 \ % following this announcement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shark unemployment figures, widely considered a key indicator of the viability of the global economy, recently dropped to a mere 1\% following this announcement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28185225</id>
	<title>Re:Lifetime</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1243969200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>10,000-20,000<strong>-hour</strong> incandescents</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p><p>Good heavens... for a minute I thought you were suggesting I open a retail chain. What on earth would I do with 10,000-20,000 incandescent bulbs?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>10,000-20,000-hour incandescentsFixed that for you.Good heavens... for a minute I thought you were suggesting I open a retail chain .
What on earth would I do with 10,000-20,000 incandescent bulbs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10,000-20,000-hour incandescentsFixed that for you.Good heavens... for a minute I thought you were suggesting I open a retail chain.
What on earth would I do with 10,000-20,000 incandescent bulbs?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173523</id>
	<title>Just use all the Electricity up front.</title>
	<author>Malluck</author>
	<datestamp>1243850160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(29,000 terawatt hours = total power used in 2005 by US) / (1 femtosecond) = 1.04400 &#215; 10^35 watts (US useage per femtosecond)</p><p>If this much juice is used to make the filiment, how is this more efficient?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( 29,000 terawatt hours = total power used in 2005 by US ) / ( 1 femtosecond ) = 1.04400   10 ^ 35 watts ( US useage per femtosecond ) If this much juice is used to make the filiment , how is this more efficient ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(29,000 terawatt hours = total power used in 2005 by US) / (1 femtosecond) = 1.04400 × 10^35 watts (US useage per femtosecond)If this much juice is used to make the filiment, how is this more efficient?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173497</id>
	<title>Burn energy to get efficient?</title>
	<author>JazzCrazed</author>
	<datestamp>1243850100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a pretty powerful laser to me. Does the energy used by this process significantly counteract any efficiency gained in the bulbs' use thereafter?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a pretty powerful laser to me .
Does the energy used by this process significantly counteract any efficiency gained in the bulbs ' use thereafter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a pretty powerful laser to me.
Does the energy used by this process significantly counteract any efficiency gained in the bulbs' use thereafter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173375</id>
	<title>Laser Blast?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who thought of <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/pages/image\_viewer/boxshot.php?pid=584844&amp;popup=1" title="gamespot.com">this</a> [gamespot.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who thought of this [ gamespot.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who thought of this [gamespot.com]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176737</id>
	<title>Power saver?</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1243868580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA: "Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America"</p><p>Doesn't sound like much of a power saver to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " Guo 's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America " Does n't sound like much of a power saver to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: "Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America"Doesn't sound like much of a power saver to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174037</id>
	<title>Re:Energy Savings?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1243852080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As another poster pointed out, although the power is a lot, the energy is very little.  The power is around 500GW.  That's 5e11W, or J/s.  One femtosecond is 1e-15s.  Multiply these together and you get 5e-4J, or 0.0005J.  At a 40W saving, it takes you 12.5 microseconds to recoup the energy. Generally, I expect bulbs to last longer than that, but maybe your usage patterns are different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As another poster pointed out , although the power is a lot , the energy is very little .
The power is around 500GW .
That 's 5e11W , or J/s .
One femtosecond is 1e-15s .
Multiply these together and you get 5e-4J , or 0.0005J .
At a 40W saving , it takes you 12.5 microseconds to recoup the energy .
Generally , I expect bulbs to last longer than that , but maybe your usage patterns are different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As another poster pointed out, although the power is a lot, the energy is very little.
The power is around 500GW.
That's 5e11W, or J/s.
One femtosecond is 1e-15s.
Multiply these together and you get 5e-4J, or 0.0005J.
At a 40W saving, it takes you 12.5 microseconds to recoup the energy.
Generally, I expect bulbs to last longer than that, but maybe your usage patterns are different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173397</id>
	<title>FFS use standard units.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the might Slash.  We can understand proper units.</p><p>Femto = 10^-15</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the might Slash .
We can understand proper units.Femto = 10 ^ -15</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the might Slash.
We can understand proper units.Femto = 10^-15</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174177</id>
	<title>Balancing the Equation</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1243852560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>During its brief burst, Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point.</p></div></blockquote><p>
So does the energy saved give a positive balance to that used in creating this new filament?<br> <br>
And aren't most filaments larger/longer than a needle point?<br> <br>
Maybe I'm not yet ready to get too excited about this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>During its brief burst , Guo 's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point .
So does the energy saved give a positive balance to that used in creating this new filament ?
And are n't most filaments larger/longer than a needle point ?
Maybe I 'm not yet ready to get too excited about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During its brief burst, Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point.
So does the energy saved give a positive balance to that used in creating this new filament?
And aren't most filaments larger/longer than a needle point?
Maybe I'm not yet ready to get too excited about this.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28185509</id>
	<title>Re:Just use all the Electricity up front.</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1243970460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You calculated 29,000 TWh / femtosecond. Which is an impressive figure, but not at all correct. That would be like focusing the entire energy use of the US in 2005 into a 1-femtosecond laser pulse. This obviously cannot be the case (heck, you'd have to steal the entire power output of the US for a year just to charge the darn thing).</p><p>Actually, it's more like this.</p><p>29,000 terawatt hours = 1.044*10^20 joules</p><p>That is how much energy was used in 2005. We only want to know how much was used in 1 femtosecond.</p><p>(1.044*10^20 joules) * (1 femtosecond / 1 year) = 0.00330830703 joules</p><p>That is how much energy would be needed to power the laser for 1 femtosecond. (Assuming the 2005 figure is valid, and disregarding the fact that it's just the US and TFA actually specified the entire North American power grid.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You calculated 29,000 TWh / femtosecond .
Which is an impressive figure , but not at all correct .
That would be like focusing the entire energy use of the US in 2005 into a 1-femtosecond laser pulse .
This obviously can not be the case ( heck , you 'd have to steal the entire power output of the US for a year just to charge the darn thing ) .Actually , it 's more like this.29,000 terawatt hours = 1.044 * 10 ^ 20 joulesThat is how much energy was used in 2005 .
We only want to know how much was used in 1 femtosecond .
( 1.044 * 10 ^ 20 joules ) * ( 1 femtosecond / 1 year ) = 0.00330830703 joulesThat is how much energy would be needed to power the laser for 1 femtosecond .
( Assuming the 2005 figure is valid , and disregarding the fact that it 's just the US and TFA actually specified the entire North American power grid .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You calculated 29,000 TWh / femtosecond.
Which is an impressive figure, but not at all correct.
That would be like focusing the entire energy use of the US in 2005 into a 1-femtosecond laser pulse.
This obviously cannot be the case (heck, you'd have to steal the entire power output of the US for a year just to charge the darn thing).Actually, it's more like this.29,000 terawatt hours = 1.044*10^20 joulesThat is how much energy was used in 2005.
We only want to know how much was used in 1 femtosecond.
(1.044*10^20 joules) * (1 femtosecond / 1 year) = 0.00330830703 joulesThat is how much energy would be needed to power the laser for 1 femtosecond.
(Assuming the 2005 figure is valid, and disregarding the fact that it's just the US and TFA actually specified the entire North American power grid.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175155</id>
	<title>Re:Now I Understand Lasers</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1243857060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, most of the "lasers" in starwars were plasma blasters, but the ships did fire "Turbo Lasers" at each other.  Turbo means they're faster than ordinary lasers, but not quite<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5 past C.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , most of the " lasers " in starwars were plasma blasters , but the ships did fire " Turbo Lasers " at each other .
Turbo means they 're faster than ordinary lasers , but not quite .5 past C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, most of the "lasers" in starwars were plasma blasters, but the ships did fire "Turbo Lasers" at each other.
Turbo means they're faster than ordinary lasers, but not quite .5 past C.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28180875</id>
	<title>Re:Production cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243951740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1e15W (1 million terawatts)</p></div></blockquote><p>1000 terawatts.  or 1 million gigawatts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1e15W ( 1 million terawatts ) 1000 terawatts .
or 1 million gigawatts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1e15W (1 million terawatts)1000 terawatts.
or 1 million gigawatts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174555</id>
	<title>uses a lot of power...</title>
	<author>jandoedel</author>
	<datestamp>1243854120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America... "</p><p>so to make a 100Watt lamp, you need a Gigawatt laser?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Guo 's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America... " so to make a 100Watt lamp , you need a Gigawatt laser ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America... "so to make a 100Watt lamp, you need a Gigawatt laser?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173611</id>
	<title>"... and remaining much cheaper to produce."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243850580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh? Than what? Even after amortizing the capital and maintenance costs for the femtosec laser?  2x incandescent bulb efficiency puts it smack dab not as efficient as CFLs, and definitely not as efficient as LED lighting.  Loses on lumens/$ to CFLs, as well.

Jeez, it's amazing how many otherwise smart people either (a) don't appreciate the development distance between a cool lab demo and a commercial product, and/or (b) don't look over the hedge and see how much better some other tech is at meeting the need.

Cool nanostructures and radiation enhancement effect, though - gotta give 'em that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh ?
Than what ?
Even after amortizing the capital and maintenance costs for the femtosec laser ?
2x incandescent bulb efficiency puts it smack dab not as efficient as CFLs , and definitely not as efficient as LED lighting .
Loses on lumens/ $ to CFLs , as well .
Jeez , it 's amazing how many otherwise smart people either ( a ) do n't appreciate the development distance between a cool lab demo and a commercial product , and/or ( b ) do n't look over the hedge and see how much better some other tech is at meeting the need .
Cool nanostructures and radiation enhancement effect , though - got ta give 'em that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh?
Than what?
Even after amortizing the capital and maintenance costs for the femtosec laser?
2x incandescent bulb efficiency puts it smack dab not as efficient as CFLs, and definitely not as efficient as LED lighting.
Loses on lumens/$ to CFLs, as well.
Jeez, it's amazing how many otherwise smart people either (a) don't appreciate the development distance between a cool lab demo and a commercial product, and/or (b) don't look over the hedge and see how much better some other tech is at meeting the need.
Cool nanostructures and radiation enhancement effect, though - gotta give 'em that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174321</id>
	<title>Re:Energy Savings?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243853100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How many lightbulbs would they need to convert from 100W to 60W usage (over time) to equal the energy cost of 1 femto second laser blast</i></p><p>Dunno, but my guess is that for each lightbulb, it will take at least 3 Slashdotters to screw it in.  One to hold the ladder, one to screw it in, and one to explain the significance of a femtosecond.</p><p>That's not including the dozen or so other Slashdotters who will want to attend and debate the relative merits of CFLs and LEDs, another dozen who insist they're wrong, a few older Slashdotters who moan about the old lightbulb working just fine, and one guy standing in a corner mumbling something about a government conspiracy while rolling out tinfoil to fashion a head covering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many lightbulbs would they need to convert from 100W to 60W usage ( over time ) to equal the energy cost of 1 femto second laser blastDunno , but my guess is that for each lightbulb , it will take at least 3 Slashdotters to screw it in .
One to hold the ladder , one to screw it in , and one to explain the significance of a femtosecond.That 's not including the dozen or so other Slashdotters who will want to attend and debate the relative merits of CFLs and LEDs , another dozen who insist they 're wrong , a few older Slashdotters who moan about the old lightbulb working just fine , and one guy standing in a corner mumbling something about a government conspiracy while rolling out tinfoil to fashion a head covering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many lightbulbs would they need to convert from 100W to 60W usage (over time) to equal the energy cost of 1 femto second laser blastDunno, but my guess is that for each lightbulb, it will take at least 3 Slashdotters to screw it in.
One to hold the ladder, one to screw it in, and one to explain the significance of a femtosecond.That's not including the dozen or so other Slashdotters who will want to attend and debate the relative merits of CFLs and LEDs, another dozen who insist they're wrong, a few older Slashdotters who moan about the old lightbulb working just fine, and one guy standing in a corner mumbling something about a government conspiracy while rolling out tinfoil to fashion a head covering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175651</id>
	<title>Um.. efficient?</title>
	<author>purpleraison</author>
	<datestamp>1243860000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me, or does the phrase "During its brief burst, Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point" seem a <em>little</em> inefficient for making a single light bulb?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me , or does the phrase " During its brief burst , Guo 's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point " seem a little inefficient for making a single light bulb ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me, or does the phrase "During its brief burst, Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point" seem a little inefficient for making a single light bulb?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173625</id>
	<title>shark</title>
	<author>Arimus</author>
	<datestamp>1243850580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does this mean every evil genius lair is now only complete with sharks with freekin' light bulbs on their heads?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean every evil genius lair is now only complete with sharks with freekin ' light bulbs on their heads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean every evil genius lair is now only complete with sharks with freekin' light bulbs on their heads?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173789</id>
	<title>Re:Just use all the Electricity up front.</title>
	<author>Malluck</author>
	<datestamp>1243851180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scratch that. I screwed up the units.<br>It comes out 104400 Joules or 29 Watt Hours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scratch that .
I screwed up the units.It comes out 104400 Joules or 29 Watt Hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scratch that.
I screwed up the units.It comes out 104400 Joules or 29 Watt Hours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173467</id>
	<title>Cheaper to produce?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>100 watt lightbulb = expensive = 60 watt lightbulb + laser = cheaper??</p><p>head asplode!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100 watt lightbulb = expensive = 60 watt lightbulb + laser = cheaper ?
? head asplode !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100 watt lightbulb = expensive = 60 watt lightbulb + laser = cheaper?
?head asplode!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28179295</id>
	<title>Already done. Nearly 20 years ago.</title>
	<author>XNormal</author>
	<datestamp>1243938600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason this works is that the surface is modified at the nanoscale to suppress emissions in the infrared spectrum where most of the energy of an incandescent light bulb is wasted. Guess what? This has already been done nearly 20 years ago.</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5123868" title="google.com">U.S. Patent 5,123,868</a> [google.com] describes a filament with nanoscale tuned resonant cavities that suppress the emission of infrared. No fancy femtosecond lasers - it was manufactured using centuries-old metalworking techniques of repeatedly drawing wires to make them thinner, followed by acid etching. It works. It improves the efficiency about twofold. Unfortunately, nanostructures can't withstand these high temperatures very long, even when made of tungsten. They deteriorate in less than 100 hours and efficiency drops to that of a conventional bulb. I'm pretty sure happens here, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason this works is that the surface is modified at the nanoscale to suppress emissions in the infrared spectrum where most of the energy of an incandescent light bulb is wasted .
Guess what ?
This has already been done nearly 20 years ago.U.S .
Patent 5,123,868 [ google.com ] describes a filament with nanoscale tuned resonant cavities that suppress the emission of infrared .
No fancy femtosecond lasers - it was manufactured using centuries-old metalworking techniques of repeatedly drawing wires to make them thinner , followed by acid etching .
It works .
It improves the efficiency about twofold .
Unfortunately , nanostructures ca n't withstand these high temperatures very long , even when made of tungsten .
They deteriorate in less than 100 hours and efficiency drops to that of a conventional bulb .
I 'm pretty sure happens here , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason this works is that the surface is modified at the nanoscale to suppress emissions in the infrared spectrum where most of the energy of an incandescent light bulb is wasted.
Guess what?
This has already been done nearly 20 years ago.U.S.
Patent 5,123,868 [google.com] describes a filament with nanoscale tuned resonant cavities that suppress the emission of infrared.
No fancy femtosecond lasers - it was manufactured using centuries-old metalworking techniques of repeatedly drawing wires to make them thinner, followed by acid etching.
It works.
It improves the efficiency about twofold.
Unfortunately, nanostructures can't withstand these high temperatures very long, even when made of tungsten.
They deteriorate in less than 100 hours and efficiency drops to that of a conventional bulb.
I'm pretty sure happens here, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173593</id>
	<title>less than a 60 watt bulb?</title>
	<author>wjh31</author>
	<datestamp>1243850400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so... less than 60 watts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>so... less than 60 watts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so... less than 60 watts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175673</id>
	<title>this can't work for long</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1243860120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason tungsten filaments have any appreciable lifetime at all, instead of just vaporizing themselves like carbon or nickel or any of the other 5,997 materials eventually rejected, is that tungsten filaments self-repair any imperfections.</p><p>If a pit forms in the filament surface, the convexities start to ablate into a vapor, and the concavities start to collect atoms from the vapor.  The crater becomes a depression, then a dip, then disappears.</p><p>In other materials the concentration of electric current and resultant heating around the defect would cause the defect to get larger, but, since tungsten collects atoms much faster as it gets hotter, it causes the defect to get smaller quicker.</p><p>in the meantime the increased heat at that spot would produce more photons.</p><p>But it's temporary.  It only lasts as long as the defect remains unrepaired.</p><p>So.   Making the filament lumpy deliberately will make it brighter, but that will start the self-repair process, which won't take long to complete.  Meaning you spent a very expensive process step to create a "more efficient" light bulb that over a few minutes or hours becomes just another light bulb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason tungsten filaments have any appreciable lifetime at all , instead of just vaporizing themselves like carbon or nickel or any of the other 5,997 materials eventually rejected , is that tungsten filaments self-repair any imperfections.If a pit forms in the filament surface , the convexities start to ablate into a vapor , and the concavities start to collect atoms from the vapor .
The crater becomes a depression , then a dip , then disappears.In other materials the concentration of electric current and resultant heating around the defect would cause the defect to get larger , but , since tungsten collects atoms much faster as it gets hotter , it causes the defect to get smaller quicker.in the meantime the increased heat at that spot would produce more photons.But it 's temporary .
It only lasts as long as the defect remains unrepaired.So .
Making the filament lumpy deliberately will make it brighter , but that will start the self-repair process , which wo n't take long to complete .
Meaning you spent a very expensive process step to create a " more efficient " light bulb that over a few minutes or hours becomes just another light bulb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason tungsten filaments have any appreciable lifetime at all, instead of just vaporizing themselves like carbon or nickel or any of the other 5,997 materials eventually rejected, is that tungsten filaments self-repair any imperfections.If a pit forms in the filament surface, the convexities start to ablate into a vapor, and the concavities start to collect atoms from the vapor.
The crater becomes a depression, then a dip, then disappears.In other materials the concentration of electric current and resultant heating around the defect would cause the defect to get larger, but, since tungsten collects atoms much faster as it gets hotter, it causes the defect to get smaller quicker.in the meantime the increased heat at that spot would produce more photons.But it's temporary.
It only lasts as long as the defect remains unrepaired.So.
Making the filament lumpy deliberately will make it brighter, but that will start the self-repair process, which won't take long to complete.
Meaning you spent a very expensive process step to create a "more efficient" light bulb that over a few minutes or hours becomes just another light bulb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176851</id>
	<title>Re:Too late</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1243869360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It took me a while to work out why so many US posters here dislike compact fluorescent lamps and complained about long warmup times that I've never seen.  I think the major reason is the cheap Chinese bulbs work perfectly well on 240V in a warm climate while you guys are running them on 110V in the cold.  As I'm used to fluorescent lamps I've never noticed the colour problems you guys talk about, and the paint on the wall is going to influence the colour cast on everything a lot more anyway.  Yellow or blue - no typical electrical light source looks as good as sunlight anyway so why get obsessed about it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It took me a while to work out why so many US posters here dislike compact fluorescent lamps and complained about long warmup times that I 've never seen .
I think the major reason is the cheap Chinese bulbs work perfectly well on 240V in a warm climate while you guys are running them on 110V in the cold .
As I 'm used to fluorescent lamps I 've never noticed the colour problems you guys talk about , and the paint on the wall is going to influence the colour cast on everything a lot more anyway .
Yellow or blue - no typical electrical light source looks as good as sunlight anyway so why get obsessed about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took me a while to work out why so many US posters here dislike compact fluorescent lamps and complained about long warmup times that I've never seen.
I think the major reason is the cheap Chinese bulbs work perfectly well on 240V in a warm climate while you guys are running them on 110V in the cold.
As I'm used to fluorescent lamps I've never noticed the colour problems you guys talk about, and the paint on the wall is going to influence the colour cast on everything a lot more anyway.
Yellow or blue - no typical electrical light source looks as good as sunlight anyway so why get obsessed about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174969</id>
	<title>Easy Bake Ovens!?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243856040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they ban incandescents, what will become of Easy Bake Ovens?  Oh the humanity!  When will ever learn?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they ban incandescents , what will become of Easy Bake Ovens ?
Oh the humanity !
When will ever learn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they ban incandescents, what will become of Easy Bake Ovens?
Oh the humanity!
When will ever learn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177539</id>
	<title>sounds great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243875420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the cost of the laser blast is only about 7 dollars!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the cost of the laser blast is only about 7 dollars !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the cost of the laser blast is only about 7 dollars!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175781</id>
	<title>Re:Production cost</title>
	<author>Artraze</author>
	<datestamp>1243860840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't seem to appreciate just how short a femtosecond is.  As it is only 1e-15sec (1 millionth of a nanosecond), that means a pulse of 1e15W (1 million terawatts) would use only about 1 joule of energy.
<br> <br>
So let's say for the sake of argument that the power and pulse length are both an order of magnitude larger.  Then say it's only 10\% efficient, so that the process actually takes 1kJ.  This energy corresponds to all of <b>25 seconds at 40W</b>.  In other words, the break even lifetime is under one minute.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't seem to appreciate just how short a femtosecond is .
As it is only 1e-15sec ( 1 millionth of a nanosecond ) , that means a pulse of 1e15W ( 1 million terawatts ) would use only about 1 joule of energy .
So let 's say for the sake of argument that the power and pulse length are both an order of magnitude larger .
Then say it 's only 10 \ % efficient , so that the process actually takes 1kJ .
This energy corresponds to all of 25 seconds at 40W .
In other words , the break even lifetime is under one minute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't seem to appreciate just how short a femtosecond is.
As it is only 1e-15sec (1 millionth of a nanosecond), that means a pulse of 1e15W (1 million terawatts) would use only about 1 joule of energy.
So let's say for the sake of argument that the power and pulse length are both an order of magnitude larger.
Then say it's only 10\% efficient, so that the process actually takes 1kJ.
This energy corresponds to all of 25 seconds at 40W.
In other words, the break even lifetime is under one minute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173809</id>
	<title>Re:Too late</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243851240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Compact florescents emit audible noise. Incandescents only emit noise if you but a cheap dimmer switch on them that chops up the sine wave. LEDs, as far I can tell, are silent. LEDs have good enough light now, they just need to be cheaper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compact florescents emit audible noise .
Incandescents only emit noise if you but a cheap dimmer switch on them that chops up the sine wave .
LEDs , as far I can tell , are silent .
LEDs have good enough light now , they just need to be cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compact florescents emit audible noise.
Incandescents only emit noise if you but a cheap dimmer switch on them that chops up the sine wave.
LEDs, as far I can tell, are silent.
LEDs have good enough light now, they just need to be cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173695</id>
	<title>Re:Super Efficient?</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1243850880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p> <i>Guo's laser unleashes <b>as much power as the entire grid of North America</b> onto a spot the size of a needle point.</i> </p></div></blockquote><p>So, by only using as much power as the entire grid of North America, we can make a "less than 60 watt" bulb as bright as a 100 watt bulb?  Perhaps it operates more efficiently, but it doesn't sound like it is so efficient to produce.  Unless I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary.</p></div><p>What the summary fails to convey accurately is that femtosecond lasers while often delivering a paltry average power of a few (hundred) milliwats, have the mentioned immense bursts of power for almost unimaginably short periods of time with unmentioned comparatively long periods of quiescence.  Peak illumination levels that approach or exceed levels at the surface of the sun are not unheard of; the filaments in question are certainly undergoing microscopic explosive plasma ablation.  But, remember, such laser pulses last a very, very, very brief period of time and there's no laser illumination to speak of between these pulses, so that the average power is reasonably low.</p><p>Think of it this way: take a 5 mW continuous laser, like your favorite laser pointer.  Turn it on for 1 second.  Now imagine taking the gazillion photons that were emitted during that entire second and emitting them all in 1 femtosecond (remember, milli-, micro-, nano-, pico-, femto-).  You still have 5 mW-seconds worth of photons, but the peak photon flux will be a thousand times a thousand times a thousand times a thousand times a thousand times brighter (that's 10^15 X brighter).  That's more-or-less what femtosecond lasers do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guo 's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point .
So , by only using as much power as the entire grid of North America , we can make a " less than 60 watt " bulb as bright as a 100 watt bulb ?
Perhaps it operates more efficiently , but it does n't sound like it is so efficient to produce .
Unless I 'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary.What the summary fails to convey accurately is that femtosecond lasers while often delivering a paltry average power of a few ( hundred ) milliwats , have the mentioned immense bursts of power for almost unimaginably short periods of time with unmentioned comparatively long periods of quiescence .
Peak illumination levels that approach or exceed levels at the surface of the sun are not unheard of ; the filaments in question are certainly undergoing microscopic explosive plasma ablation .
But , remember , such laser pulses last a very , very , very brief period of time and there 's no laser illumination to speak of between these pulses , so that the average power is reasonably low.Think of it this way : take a 5 mW continuous laser , like your favorite laser pointer .
Turn it on for 1 second .
Now imagine taking the gazillion photons that were emitted during that entire second and emitting them all in 1 femtosecond ( remember , milli- , micro- , nano- , pico- , femto- ) .
You still have 5 mW-seconds worth of photons , but the peak photon flux will be a thousand times a thousand times a thousand times a thousand times a thousand times brighter ( that 's 10 ^ 15 X brighter ) .
That 's more-or-less what femtosecond lasers do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point.
So, by only using as much power as the entire grid of North America, we can make a "less than 60 watt" bulb as bright as a 100 watt bulb?
Perhaps it operates more efficiently, but it doesn't sound like it is so efficient to produce.
Unless I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary.What the summary fails to convey accurately is that femtosecond lasers while often delivering a paltry average power of a few (hundred) milliwats, have the mentioned immense bursts of power for almost unimaginably short periods of time with unmentioned comparatively long periods of quiescence.
Peak illumination levels that approach or exceed levels at the surface of the sun are not unheard of; the filaments in question are certainly undergoing microscopic explosive plasma ablation.
But, remember, such laser pulses last a very, very, very brief period of time and there's no laser illumination to speak of between these pulses, so that the average power is reasonably low.Think of it this way: take a 5 mW continuous laser, like your favorite laser pointer.
Turn it on for 1 second.
Now imagine taking the gazillion photons that were emitted during that entire second and emitting them all in 1 femtosecond (remember, milli-, micro-, nano-, pico-, femto-).
You still have 5 mW-seconds worth of photons, but the peak photon flux will be a thousand times a thousand times a thousand times a thousand times a thousand times brighter (that's 10^15 X brighter).
That's more-or-less what femtosecond lasers do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176939</id>
	<title>Re:Production cost</title>
	<author>buggerybox</author>
	<datestamp>1243869960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because power != energy.

Power x TIME = energy.

This is why your power bill is for kilowatt <b>hours</b>, not just kilowatts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because power ! = energy .
Power x TIME = energy .
This is why your power bill is for kilowatt hours , not just kilowatts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because power != energy.
Power x TIME = energy.
This is why your power bill is for kilowatt hours, not just kilowatts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173405</id>
	<title>Incandescent will never be called efficient.</title>
	<author>Behrooz</author>
	<datestamp>1243849800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, a standard incandescent bulb puts out something like 10-15\% of the energy input as visible light?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and this process boosts that up to maybe 15-25\% efficiency?</p><p>This is interesting from a materials science perspective and for lighting technology in the near-term, but hardly what I'd call super-efficient.  Wake me up in a couple years when they have the bugs worked out of LED lighting...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , a standard incandescent bulb puts out something like 10-15 \ % of the energy input as visible light ?
...and this process boosts that up to maybe 15-25 \ % efficiency ? This is interesting from a materials science perspective and for lighting technology in the near-term , but hardly what I 'd call super-efficient .
Wake me up in a couple years when they have the bugs worked out of LED lighting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, a standard incandescent bulb puts out something like 10-15\% of the energy input as visible light?
...and this process boosts that up to maybe 15-25\% efficiency?This is interesting from a materials science perspective and for lighting technology in the near-term, but hardly what I'd call super-efficient.
Wake me up in a couple years when they have the bugs worked out of LED lighting...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175299</id>
	<title>Energy efficient at what cost?</title>
	<author>fruitbane</author>
	<datestamp>1243857840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over the life of the bulb will it conserve enough energy to make up for the energy wasted by the uber-laser to create the filament?</p><p>This new development may not, at present, result in net gain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the life of the bulb will it conserve enough energy to make up for the energy wasted by the uber-laser to create the filament ? This new development may not , at present , result in net gain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the life of the bulb will it conserve enough energy to make up for the energy wasted by the uber-laser to create the filament?This new development may not, at present, result in net gain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174035</id>
	<title>Re:Too late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243852020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad they glow dimly for a time before they come on, and are expensive, and burn out after 1/10 the life of an incandescent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad they glow dimly for a time before they come on , and are expensive , and burn out after 1/10 the life of an incandescent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad they glow dimly for a time before they come on, and are expensive, and burn out after 1/10 the life of an incandescent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173471</id>
	<title>Re:Super Efficient?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Perhaps it operates more efficiently, but it doesn't sound like it is so efficient to produce. Unless I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary.</i></p><p>You forgot that femtosecond part.  The usage of the whole USA grid is for an incredibly tiny fraction of a second, 10^15 of a second.  The USA grid is 4x10^15 watts.  So really, if you want to translate it into a more sane energy understanding, its about four watts per bulb to do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it operates more efficiently , but it does n't sound like it is so efficient to produce .
Unless I 'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary.You forgot that femtosecond part .
The usage of the whole USA grid is for an incredibly tiny fraction of a second , 10 ^ 15 of a second .
The USA grid is 4x10 ^ 15 watts .
So really , if you want to translate it into a more sane energy understanding , its about four watts per bulb to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it operates more efficiently, but it doesn't sound like it is so efficient to produce.
Unless I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary.You forgot that femtosecond part.
The usage of the whole USA grid is for an incredibly tiny fraction of a second, 10^15 of a second.
The USA grid is 4x10^15 watts.
So really, if you want to translate it into a more sane energy understanding, its about four watts per bulb to do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176749</id>
	<title>Shortens bulb's life</title>
	<author>Jeff1946</author>
	<datestamp>1243868640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I assume this works by increasing the surface area of the filament.   This will also increase the rate of evaporation of the tungsten which will shorten the bulb's life.  Seems pretty impractical to me to do this on the entire surface of the filament at a reasonible cost anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume this works by increasing the surface area of the filament .
This will also increase the rate of evaporation of the tungsten which will shorten the bulb 's life .
Seems pretty impractical to me to do this on the entire surface of the filament at a reasonible cost anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume this works by increasing the surface area of the filament.
This will also increase the rate of evaporation of the tungsten which will shorten the bulb's life.
Seems pretty impractical to me to do this on the entire surface of the filament at a reasonible cost anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176301</id>
	<title>But is it REALLY more effecient?</title>
	<author>RobRyland</author>
	<datestamp>1243864860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lightbulb works because the filiment gets really hot and glows with blackbody radiation. All of the electric power that goes into the bulb is radiated. So in some sense, the incandecent bulb is already 100\% effecient. the only problem is that most of the radiated energy is at infrared frequencies and doesn't do anything to light the room for human eyes. If you increase the emmisivity of the filiment to 100\%, it is not obvious that you increase the effeciency of the bulb one iota. In fact, I would guess that the effeciency of the bulb goes down, since the filiment temperature will go down (since you radiate more power at a given temperature) and more of the radiation will be in the IR. Now, if he can change the surface of the filiment so the emmisivity is very high in the visable but very low in the IR, then and only then will he be onto something.
-Rob
(and yes, I am in fact a physicist)</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lightbulb works because the filiment gets really hot and glows with blackbody radiation .
All of the electric power that goes into the bulb is radiated .
So in some sense , the incandecent bulb is already 100 \ % effecient .
the only problem is that most of the radiated energy is at infrared frequencies and does n't do anything to light the room for human eyes .
If you increase the emmisivity of the filiment to 100 \ % , it is not obvious that you increase the effeciency of the bulb one iota .
In fact , I would guess that the effeciency of the bulb goes down , since the filiment temperature will go down ( since you radiate more power at a given temperature ) and more of the radiation will be in the IR .
Now , if he can change the surface of the filiment so the emmisivity is very high in the visable but very low in the IR , then and only then will he be onto something .
-Rob ( and yes , I am in fact a physicist )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lightbulb works because the filiment gets really hot and glows with blackbody radiation.
All of the electric power that goes into the bulb is radiated.
So in some sense, the incandecent bulb is already 100\% effecient.
the only problem is that most of the radiated energy is at infrared frequencies and doesn't do anything to light the room for human eyes.
If you increase the emmisivity of the filiment to 100\%, it is not obvious that you increase the effeciency of the bulb one iota.
In fact, I would guess that the effeciency of the bulb goes down, since the filiment temperature will go down (since you radiate more power at a given temperature) and more of the radiation will be in the IR.
Now, if he can change the surface of the filiment so the emmisivity is very high in the visable but very low in the IR, then and only then will he be onto something.
-Rob
(and yes, I am in fact a physicist)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175153</id>
	<title>Mercury disposal in efficient ligth bulbs</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1243857060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it is sure nice to hear we could make the old light bulb more efficient. Quite a few people agree that the new "efficient" lighting sold in stores may cause a serious problem and that we *may* be shooting ourselves in the foot. Problem would be that newer "efficient" lighting may cost more to produce energy wise and that each unit contains among others mercury which should not get disposed of in the garbage bin.</p><p>Not sure if the alternative in the FA in viable although<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it is sure nice to hear we could make the old light bulb more efficient .
Quite a few people agree that the new " efficient " lighting sold in stores may cause a serious problem and that we * may * be shooting ourselves in the foot .
Problem would be that newer " efficient " lighting may cost more to produce energy wise and that each unit contains among others mercury which should not get disposed of in the garbage bin.Not sure if the alternative in the FA in viable although ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it is sure nice to hear we could make the old light bulb more efficient.
Quite a few people agree that the new "efficient" lighting sold in stores may cause a serious problem and that we *may* be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Problem would be that newer "efficient" lighting may cost more to produce energy wise and that each unit contains among others mercury which should not get disposed of in the garbage bin.Not sure if the alternative in the FA in viable although ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174711</id>
	<title>Femosecond? I misread that</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1243854840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and thought we had a new unit of measure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Me: Ready to go honey?<br>Her: Yes, just a second...</p><p>(20 min pause until we actually leave)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and thought we had a new unit of measure : PMe : Ready to go honey ? Her : Yes , just a second... ( 20 min pause until we actually leave )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and thought we had a new unit of measure :PMe: Ready to go honey?Her: Yes, just a second...(20 min pause until we actually leave)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28180887</id>
	<title>Thieves of liberty to take away your lightbulbs</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1243951800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Controversy has erupted over incandescent light bulbs being phased out to be replaced with horrible expensive yellow things that look like <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/01/07/thieves-of-liberty-to-take-away-your-freedoms-and-lightbulbs/" title="today.com">robot marital aids</a> [today.com].

</p><p>The switch to compact fluorescent lamps is expected to save households two-thirds of their monthly income, singlehandedly save the world from climate change and bring about world peace, harmony and a top 10 chart not filled with rubbish.

</p><p>However, many people find the low-energy bulbs ugly, slow to warm up and much more expensive, and the harsher light they give off akin to that of a police cell or McDonald's. Their rapid flicker contains coded messages designed to hypnotise independent-minded citizens and turn them into gibberish-spouting socialist cultists. The bulbs are made entirely of mercury, polonium and ebola. Scientists have proven that Hitler used low-energy bulbs for illumination when writing Mein Kampf, and paedophiles prefer internet images of dear innocent children taken under their unforgiving glare.

</p><p>The <i>Daily Mail</i> has come out strongly against the compact fluorescents. "British cowed by tin pot marxists maddest flights from reality political class bizarre gesture Bliar take away liberty march on Westminster revolt against Europe IF YOU LIKE IT SO MUCH WHY DON'T YOU LIVE THERE." To this end, the paper is giving away five thousand incandescent bulbs <b> <i>free!!!</i> </b> when you spend a pound calling an 0900 number.

</p><p>"We can't be having this com-pack fluoro Euro rubbish," said Brenda Busybody, 77 (IQ) of East Cheam. "They just don't have the same warm glow to them. It's so cold this week! We need more gas lamps and burning torches, they go well with the pitchforks."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Controversy has erupted over incandescent light bulbs being phased out to be replaced with horrible expensive yellow things that look like robot marital aids [ today.com ] .
The switch to compact fluorescent lamps is expected to save households two-thirds of their monthly income , singlehandedly save the world from climate change and bring about world peace , harmony and a top 10 chart not filled with rubbish .
However , many people find the low-energy bulbs ugly , slow to warm up and much more expensive , and the harsher light they give off akin to that of a police cell or McDonald 's .
Their rapid flicker contains coded messages designed to hypnotise independent-minded citizens and turn them into gibberish-spouting socialist cultists .
The bulbs are made entirely of mercury , polonium and ebola .
Scientists have proven that Hitler used low-energy bulbs for illumination when writing Mein Kampf , and paedophiles prefer internet images of dear innocent children taken under their unforgiving glare .
The Daily Mail has come out strongly against the compact fluorescents .
" British cowed by tin pot marxists maddest flights from reality political class bizarre gesture Bliar take away liberty march on Westminster revolt against Europe IF YOU LIKE IT SO MUCH WHY DO N'T YOU LIVE THERE .
" To this end , the paper is giving away five thousand incandescent bulbs free ! ! !
when you spend a pound calling an 0900 number .
" We ca n't be having this com-pack fluoro Euro rubbish , " said Brenda Busybody , 77 ( IQ ) of East Cheam .
" They just do n't have the same warm glow to them .
It 's so cold this week !
We need more gas lamps and burning torches , they go well with the pitchforks .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Controversy has erupted over incandescent light bulbs being phased out to be replaced with horrible expensive yellow things that look like robot marital aids [today.com].
The switch to compact fluorescent lamps is expected to save households two-thirds of their monthly income, singlehandedly save the world from climate change and bring about world peace, harmony and a top 10 chart not filled with rubbish.
However, many people find the low-energy bulbs ugly, slow to warm up and much more expensive, and the harsher light they give off akin to that of a police cell or McDonald's.
Their rapid flicker contains coded messages designed to hypnotise independent-minded citizens and turn them into gibberish-spouting socialist cultists.
The bulbs are made entirely of mercury, polonium and ebola.
Scientists have proven that Hitler used low-energy bulbs for illumination when writing Mein Kampf, and paedophiles prefer internet images of dear innocent children taken under their unforgiving glare.
The Daily Mail has come out strongly against the compact fluorescents.
"British cowed by tin pot marxists maddest flights from reality political class bizarre gesture Bliar take away liberty march on Westminster revolt against Europe IF YOU LIKE IT SO MUCH WHY DON'T YOU LIVE THERE.
" To this end, the paper is giving away five thousand incandescent bulbs  free!!!
when you spend a pound calling an 0900 number.
"We can't be having this com-pack fluoro Euro rubbish," said Brenda Busybody, 77 (IQ) of East Cheam.
"They just don't have the same warm glow to them.
It's so cold this week!
We need more gas lamps and burning torches, they go well with the pitchforks.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173683</id>
	<title>Re:This just in...</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1243850760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shark unemployment figures, widely considered a key indicator of the viability of the global economy, recently dropped to a mere 1\% following this announcement.</p></div><p>Efficiency also means less full-time people are needed for the same amount of work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shark unemployment figures , widely considered a key indicator of the viability of the global economy , recently dropped to a mere 1 \ % following this announcement.Efficiency also means less full-time people are needed for the same amount of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shark unemployment figures, widely considered a key indicator of the viability of the global economy, recently dropped to a mere 1\% following this announcement.Efficiency also means less full-time people are needed for the same amount of work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175265</id>
	<title>Re:This just in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243857660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Efficiency also means less full-time people are needed for the same amount of work.</p></div></blockquote><p>Fewer, not less.<br> <br>HTH. HAND.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Efficiency also means less full-time people are needed for the same amount of work.Fewer , not less .
HTH. HAND .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Efficiency also means less full-time people are needed for the same amount of work.Fewer, not less.
HTH. HAND.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175019</id>
	<title>Too late.  Bye bye.</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1243856220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too late.  Incandescent light bulbs are illegal soon.  Who needs technology when we have laws?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too late .
Incandescent light bulbs are illegal soon .
Who needs technology when we have laws ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too late.
Incandescent light bulbs are illegal soon.
Who needs technology when we have laws?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173919</id>
	<title>Re:Just use all the Electricity up front.</title>
	<author>necro81</author>
	<datestamp>1243851660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you've got an error in your figures.  The summary says that the laser produces as much <i>power</i> as the US grid.  Your calculations use the electrical <i>energy</i> output of an entire year.  To get it right, you would also need to divide out, not by one femtosecond, but by the number of femtoseconds in a year, which would yield the US energy usage per fs.  <br> <br>

Alternately, use the (average) power output of US grid, which would be 29000 TWh / number of seconds in a year.  It comes to about 920 GW (approx 10^12 W).  Then multiply by one femtosecond (10^-15 sec) to get the energy embodied in one of these pulses, which is about 1 mJ if I did my calcs correctly.  Say the filament requires millions of pulses to get this new level of efficiency, you are only looking at hundreds or thousands of extra joules added to the manufacturing, which is far less than the bulb will use over its lifetime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 've got an error in your figures .
The summary says that the laser produces as much power as the US grid .
Your calculations use the electrical energy output of an entire year .
To get it right , you would also need to divide out , not by one femtosecond , but by the number of femtoseconds in a year , which would yield the US energy usage per fs .
Alternately , use the ( average ) power output of US grid , which would be 29000 TWh / number of seconds in a year .
It comes to about 920 GW ( approx 10 ^ 12 W ) .
Then multiply by one femtosecond ( 10 ^ -15 sec ) to get the energy embodied in one of these pulses , which is about 1 mJ if I did my calcs correctly .
Say the filament requires millions of pulses to get this new level of efficiency , you are only looking at hundreds or thousands of extra joules added to the manufacturing , which is far less than the bulb will use over its lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you've got an error in your figures.
The summary says that the laser produces as much power as the US grid.
Your calculations use the electrical energy output of an entire year.
To get it right, you would also need to divide out, not by one femtosecond, but by the number of femtoseconds in a year, which would yield the US energy usage per fs.
Alternately, use the (average) power output of US grid, which would be 29000 TWh / number of seconds in a year.
It comes to about 920 GW (approx 10^12 W).
Then multiply by one femtosecond (10^-15 sec) to get the energy embodied in one of these pulses, which is about 1 mJ if I did my calcs correctly.
Say the filament requires millions of pulses to get this new level of efficiency, you are only looking at hundreds or thousands of extra joules added to the manufacturing, which is far less than the bulb will use over its lifetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28188585</id>
	<title>Uhhhmm...</title>
	<author>prometx42</author>
	<datestamp>1243940220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Doesn't the power required to operate a "super-powerful" laser, somewhat mitigate the power "savings" you might resultingly implement on the lightbulb?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't the power required to operate a " super-powerful " laser , somewhat mitigate the power " savings " you might resultingly implement on the lightbulb ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Doesn't the power required to operate a "super-powerful" laser, somewhat mitigate the power "savings" you might resultingly implement on the lightbulb?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174477</id>
	<title>Anal for units</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1243853820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watts is a measurement of joules per second, so if you multiple power by time (as in applying 4x10^15 Watts for 10^-15 seconds) you get 4 joules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watts is a measurement of joules per second , so if you multiple power by time ( as in applying 4x10 ^ 15 Watts for 10 ^ -15 seconds ) you get 4 joules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watts is a measurement of joules per second, so if you multiple power by time (as in applying 4x10^15 Watts for 10^-15 seconds) you get 4 joules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174457</id>
	<title>If I don't want to use the laser</title>
	<author>Amazing Quantum Man</author>
	<datestamp>1243853760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I use ill-tempered mutant Chilean sea bass instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I use ill-tempered mutant Chilean sea bass instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I use ill-tempered mutant Chilean sea bass instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174539</id>
	<title>Re:Too late</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1243854060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their light may be fine enough for you perhaps. Maybe you have low standards, or you just don't care about light quality, or maybe you can't tell the difference. I think CFLs' output spectrum is completely unsuitable for anything and won't have them in my house. It's an insult for me to hang paintings and photographs on my wall and light them with a shitty peaky CFL output spectrum. It's completely obviously inferior. Unfortunately, LEDs aren't much better. <p>If only there was a lighting technology that could emit a continuous spectrum, maybe even approximating an ideal black body like the sun...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their light may be fine enough for you perhaps .
Maybe you have low standards , or you just do n't care about light quality , or maybe you ca n't tell the difference .
I think CFLs ' output spectrum is completely unsuitable for anything and wo n't have them in my house .
It 's an insult for me to hang paintings and photographs on my wall and light them with a shitty peaky CFL output spectrum .
It 's completely obviously inferior .
Unfortunately , LEDs are n't much better .
If only there was a lighting technology that could emit a continuous spectrum , maybe even approximating an ideal black body like the sun.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their light may be fine enough for you perhaps.
Maybe you have low standards, or you just don't care about light quality, or maybe you can't tell the difference.
I think CFLs' output spectrum is completely unsuitable for anything and won't have them in my house.
It's an insult for me to hang paintings and photographs on my wall and light them with a shitty peaky CFL output spectrum.
It's completely obviously inferior.
Unfortunately, LEDs aren't much better.
If only there was a lighting technology that could emit a continuous spectrum, maybe even approximating an ideal black body like the sun...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173533</id>
	<title>Not really super-efficient</title>
	<author>divide overflow</author>
	<datestamp>1243850220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if the luminous efficacy improves a 60 watt incandescent to that of a 100 watt bulb that still puts it around 29-30 lumens per watt, about 30\% of a good fluorescent or LED light source.
<br> <br>
This is a nice improvement for an inherently inefficient and quite dated technology, but hardly  but hardly "super-efficient" in the larger sense of overall luminous efficacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the luminous efficacy improves a 60 watt incandescent to that of a 100 watt bulb that still puts it around 29-30 lumens per watt , about 30 \ % of a good fluorescent or LED light source .
This is a nice improvement for an inherently inefficient and quite dated technology , but hardly but hardly " super-efficient " in the larger sense of overall luminous efficacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the luminous efficacy improves a 60 watt incandescent to that of a 100 watt bulb that still puts it around 29-30 lumens per watt, about 30\% of a good fluorescent or LED light source.
This is a nice improvement for an inherently inefficient and quite dated technology, but hardly  but hardly "super-efficient" in the larger sense of overall luminous efficacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173393</id>
	<title>super!</title>
	<author>u4ya</author>
	<datestamp>1243849740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>and it only takes 11 years of operating the more efficient bulb to compensate for the energy consumed during the laser burst</htmltext>
<tokenext>and it only takes 11 years of operating the more efficient bulb to compensate for the energy consumed during the laser burst</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and it only takes 11 years of operating the more efficient bulb to compensate for the energy consumed during the laser burst</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28184283</id>
	<title>grid?</title>
	<author>dwater</author>
	<datestamp>1243965300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"To get a grasp of that kind of speed, consider that a femtosecond is to a second what a second is to about 32 million years. During its brief burst, Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point."</p><p>Sure, but how many "Library-of-Congresses is that?</p><p>Max.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" To get a grasp of that kind of speed , consider that a femtosecond is to a second what a second is to about 32 million years .
During its brief burst , Guo 's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point .
" Sure , but how many " Library-of-Congresses is that ? Max .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"To get a grasp of that kind of speed, consider that a femtosecond is to a second what a second is to about 32 million years.
During its brief burst, Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point.
"Sure, but how many "Library-of-Congresses is that?Max.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175263</id>
	<title>Production cost</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1243857660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>considering they are as cheap to produce as normal lightbulbs...</p></div></blockquote><p>Hold on a sec.  They're...</p><blockquote><div><p>unleash[ing] as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...in order to gain 40W of light output over the course of a lightbulb's lifetime.</p><p>I'm having a little trouble with imagining how it could be efficient to do that for every lightbulb sold.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>considering they are as cheap to produce as normal lightbulbs...Hold on a sec .
They 're...unleash [ ing ] as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point ...in order to gain 40W of light output over the course of a lightbulb 's lifetime.I 'm having a little trouble with imagining how it could be efficient to do that for every lightbulb sold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>considering they are as cheap to produce as normal lightbulbs...Hold on a sec.
They're...unleash[ing] as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point ...in order to gain 40W of light output over the course of a lightbulb's lifetime.I'm having a little trouble with imagining how it could be efficient to do that for every lightbulb sold.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173621</id>
	<title>Re:Super Efficient?</title>
	<author>yoghurt</author>
	<datestamp>1243850580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's do the math.  From that fount of knowledge that is wikipedia, the US grid is about 4 thousand terawatts.  That's 4*10^15 W.</p><p>So say we want over 4 times that, like 20*10^15 W to give 4 times the power of the US grid.</p><p>Power is energy divided by time.  1 femtosecond is 10^(-15) sec.<br>Let energy in joules be E, power in watts be P and time in seconds be T, then<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; E = P*T<br>So the energy of power 20*10^15 W times times time 10^(-15) is just 20 Joules.</p><p>Say it takes 1 sec to pump the laser, that's an average power of 20W.  Of course the laser pumping<br>isn't 100\% efficient, and 1 sec might not be the exact right time, it's still feasible.  It's only the equivalent<br>energy of having the light bulb lit for a few seconds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's do the math .
From that fount of knowledge that is wikipedia , the US grid is about 4 thousand terawatts .
That 's 4 * 10 ^ 15 W.So say we want over 4 times that , like 20 * 10 ^ 15 W to give 4 times the power of the US grid.Power is energy divided by time .
1 femtosecond is 10 ^ ( -15 ) sec.Let energy in joules be E , power in watts be P and time in seconds be T , then       E = P * TSo the energy of power 20 * 10 ^ 15 W times times time 10 ^ ( -15 ) is just 20 Joules.Say it takes 1 sec to pump the laser , that 's an average power of 20W .
Of course the laser pumpingis n't 100 \ % efficient , and 1 sec might not be the exact right time , it 's still feasible .
It 's only the equivalentenergy of having the light bulb lit for a few seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's do the math.
From that fount of knowledge that is wikipedia, the US grid is about 4 thousand terawatts.
That's 4*10^15 W.So say we want over 4 times that, like 20*10^15 W to give 4 times the power of the US grid.Power is energy divided by time.
1 femtosecond is 10^(-15) sec.Let energy in joules be E, power in watts be P and time in seconds be T, then
      E = P*TSo the energy of power 20*10^15 W times times time 10^(-15) is just 20 Joules.Say it takes 1 sec to pump the laser, that's an average power of 20W.
Of course the laser pumpingisn't 100\% efficient, and 1 sec might not be the exact right time, it's still feasible.
It's only the equivalentenergy of having the light bulb lit for a few seconds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175517</id>
	<title>ultra-brief, ultra-expensive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243859040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"as much power as the entire grid of North America"</p><p>All that power just to save 40 watts?!? Am I the only one who caught it? What's that equal to; spending thousands of dollars to save a penny? God, I bet it takes an entire day to cool the laser and charge the capacitors. Unless this process makes the filaments indestructible too then this is just a big laugh of just because they could!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" as much power as the entire grid of North America " All that power just to save 40 watts ? ! ?
Am I the only one who caught it ?
What 's that equal to ; spending thousands of dollars to save a penny ?
God , I bet it takes an entire day to cool the laser and charge the capacitors .
Unless this process makes the filaments indestructible too then this is just a big laugh of just because they could !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"as much power as the entire grid of North America"All that power just to save 40 watts?!?
Am I the only one who caught it?
What's that equal to; spending thousands of dollars to save a penny?
God, I bet it takes an entire day to cool the laser and charge the capacitors.
Unless this process makes the filaments indestructible too then this is just a big laugh of just because they could!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174407</id>
	<title>Good Unintended Consequences</title>
	<author>BoRegardless</author>
	<datestamp>1243853520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The researchers initially formed 'ultra-black' metals which would absorb almost all wavelengths of infra-red to ultraviolet light, and then tried radiating from such a surface.  It is not a practical product in any way, yet, but this is what drives new uses and products.</p><p>My beef is when governments decide they know best how to get efficient and mandate "efficiency" or "compact flourescent bulbs".</p><p>Governments screw with the private sector incentive to do better in any way that is good and it often make a disincentive for some companies to try to produce a better product or more of it when "the government" has already mandated something else (or now decided to tax it even more).</p><p>Governments should not be telling people what cars or trucks' mileage should be, but make core decisions about directing necessary utilities and services on a long term sustainable basis rather than based on the next election cycle.  Core issues on energy source, supply, transmission, grid reliability &amp; recovery, and redundancy are simply not being done as far as I read about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers initially formed 'ultra-black ' metals which would absorb almost all wavelengths of infra-red to ultraviolet light , and then tried radiating from such a surface .
It is not a practical product in any way , yet , but this is what drives new uses and products.My beef is when governments decide they know best how to get efficient and mandate " efficiency " or " compact flourescent bulbs " .Governments screw with the private sector incentive to do better in any way that is good and it often make a disincentive for some companies to try to produce a better product or more of it when " the government " has already mandated something else ( or now decided to tax it even more ) .Governments should not be telling people what cars or trucks ' mileage should be , but make core decisions about directing necessary utilities and services on a long term sustainable basis rather than based on the next election cycle .
Core issues on energy source , supply , transmission , grid reliability &amp; recovery , and redundancy are simply not being done as far as I read about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers initially formed 'ultra-black' metals which would absorb almost all wavelengths of infra-red to ultraviolet light, and then tried radiating from such a surface.
It is not a practical product in any way, yet, but this is what drives new uses and products.My beef is when governments decide they know best how to get efficient and mandate "efficiency" or "compact flourescent bulbs".Governments screw with the private sector incentive to do better in any way that is good and it often make a disincentive for some companies to try to produce a better product or more of it when "the government" has already mandated something else (or now decided to tax it even more).Governments should not be telling people what cars or trucks' mileage should be, but make core decisions about directing necessary utilities and services on a long term sustainable basis rather than based on the next election cycle.
Core issues on energy source, supply, transmission, grid reliability &amp; recovery, and redundancy are simply not being done as far as I read about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173285</id>
	<title>And they will hit the shelves in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243849440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, considering they are as cheap to produce as normal lightbulbs, we can expect to see these on the shelves in...2050?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , considering they are as cheap to produce as normal lightbulbs , we can expect to see these on the shelves in...2050 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, considering they are as cheap to produce as normal lightbulbs, we can expect to see these on the shelves in...2050?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174041</id>
	<title>Re:Too late</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1243852080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They still suck for convenience bulbs that are powered on for 10 or 20 hours a year (making it sort of difficult to save much electricity).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They still suck for convenience bulbs that are powered on for 10 or 20 hours a year ( making it sort of difficult to save much electricity ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still suck for convenience bulbs that are powered on for 10 or 20 hours a year (making it sort of difficult to save much electricity).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177991</id>
	<title>efficiency?!?!?!?</title>
	<author>alanshot</author>
	<datestamp>1243880400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>let me get this straight (no, I didnt RTFA):</p><p>We blast a filament with the energy of the ENTIRE grid for a microsecond. we then "save" energy?</p><p>Isnt that kinda like spending an extra $20 to buy a coupon to save 5$ on a product?  How is that more efficient?</p><p>I can appear to be more efficient as a manager by making my underlings work longer hours behind the scenes. That still doesnt make it more efficient in reality (just in perception).  Sure, you saw me do something really fast and efficient, but that doesnt mean that the entire energy used to complete the project is actually less due to hidden "costs".</p><p>This reminds me of hydrogen vehicles. "but hydrogen burns so efficiently! Its the energy of the future because it is so efficient!!!!"  Yet everyone forgets that it costs so freakin much to CREATE (refine) hydrogen that the final output of hydrogen energy  can actually be a NEGATIVE result (e.g. 5 units of coal energy to create/refine enough hydrogen to create 4 units of work).</p><p>"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/yes, I know thats not an accurate quote but I am using it anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>let me get this straight ( no , I didnt RTFA ) : We blast a filament with the energy of the ENTIRE grid for a microsecond .
we then " save " energy ? Isnt that kinda like spending an extra $ 20 to buy a coupon to save 5 $ on a product ?
How is that more efficient ? I can appear to be more efficient as a manager by making my underlings work longer hours behind the scenes .
That still doesnt make it more efficient in reality ( just in perception ) .
Sure , you saw me do something really fast and efficient , but that doesnt mean that the entire energy used to complete the project is actually less due to hidden " costs " .This reminds me of hydrogen vehicles .
" but hydrogen burns so efficiently !
Its the energy of the future because it is so efficient ! ! ! !
" Yet everyone forgets that it costs so freakin much to CREATE ( refine ) hydrogen that the final output of hydrogen energy can actually be a NEGATIVE result ( e.g .
5 units of coal energy to create/refine enough hydrogen to create 4 units of work ) .
" the road to hell is paved with good intentions " /yes , I know thats not an accurate quote but I am using it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let me get this straight (no, I didnt RTFA):We blast a filament with the energy of the ENTIRE grid for a microsecond.
we then "save" energy?Isnt that kinda like spending an extra $20 to buy a coupon to save 5$ on a product?
How is that more efficient?I can appear to be more efficient as a manager by making my underlings work longer hours behind the scenes.
That still doesnt make it more efficient in reality (just in perception).
Sure, you saw me do something really fast and efficient, but that doesnt mean that the entire energy used to complete the project is actually less due to hidden "costs".This reminds me of hydrogen vehicles.
"but hydrogen burns so efficiently!
Its the energy of the future because it is so efficient!!!!
"  Yet everyone forgets that it costs so freakin much to CREATE (refine) hydrogen that the final output of hydrogen energy  can actually be a NEGATIVE result (e.g.
5 units of coal energy to create/refine enough hydrogen to create 4 units of work).
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions" /yes, I know thats not an accurate quote but I am using it anyway.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177657</id>
	<title>So, how about winter?</title>
	<author>Lennort</author>
	<datestamp>1243876680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Incandescents waste energy as heat, but what about winter when this heat isn't wasted but is actually useful? When it's warm, yeah, it's an undesired by product, but during the winter they help you heat your home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Incandescents waste energy as heat , but what about winter when this heat is n't wasted but is actually useful ?
When it 's warm , yeah , it 's an undesired by product , but during the winter they help you heat your home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incandescents waste energy as heat, but what about winter when this heat isn't wasted but is actually useful?
When it's warm, yeah, it's an undesired by product, but during the winter they help you heat your home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174079</id>
	<title>Conservation (of electricity) is a red herring</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1243852140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conservation is a red herring: population growth will outstrip any resulting savings. <b>Instead</b>, we should focus on generating energy sustainably. We can do that today with a combination of wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.</p><p>Conservation almost always reduces our quality of life. Why should we do that when we have the technology to not only save the environment, but improve our lives as well? We should be encouraging people to use <i>more</i> energy when that power makes life easier. By all rights, electricity should be cheap and plentiful.</p><p>I can't help but wonder whether conservation advocates feel guilt over civilization itself. I certainly don't. There's no shame in using technology to make our lives better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conservation is a red herring : population growth will outstrip any resulting savings .
Instead , we should focus on generating energy sustainably .
We can do that today with a combination of wind , hydroelectric , and nuclear power.Conservation almost always reduces our quality of life .
Why should we do that when we have the technology to not only save the environment , but improve our lives as well ?
We should be encouraging people to use more energy when that power makes life easier .
By all rights , electricity should be cheap and plentiful.I ca n't help but wonder whether conservation advocates feel guilt over civilization itself .
I certainly do n't .
There 's no shame in using technology to make our lives better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conservation is a red herring: population growth will outstrip any resulting savings.
Instead, we should focus on generating energy sustainably.
We can do that today with a combination of wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.Conservation almost always reduces our quality of life.
Why should we do that when we have the technology to not only save the environment, but improve our lives as well?
We should be encouraging people to use more energy when that power makes life easier.
By all rights, electricity should be cheap and plentiful.I can't help but wonder whether conservation advocates feel guilt over civilization itself.
I certainly don't.
There's no shame in using technology to make our lives better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173505</id>
	<title>Too bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243850100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GE and Philips have already bought and payed for the public perception of which types of lightbulbs are green, and which ones make you a remorseless monster who's worse than hitler.</p><p>Hint:  the 'green' one is the one with the enormous profit margin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GE and Philips have already bought and payed for the public perception of which types of lightbulbs are green , and which ones make you a remorseless monster who 's worse than hitler.Hint : the 'green ' one is the one with the enormous profit margin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GE and Philips have already bought and payed for the public perception of which types of lightbulbs are green, and which ones make you a remorseless monster who's worse than hitler.Hint:  the 'green' one is the one with the enormous profit margin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173347</id>
	<title>Re:Now I Understand Lasers</title>
	<author>sesshomaru</author>
	<datestamp>1243849620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>James Bond: Do you expect me to talk?</p><p>Auric Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to be more efficient!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>James Bond : Do you expect me to talk ? Auric Goldfinger : No , Mr. Bond , I expect you to be more efficient !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James Bond: Do you expect me to talk?Auric Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to be more efficient!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28179879</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation (of electricity) is a red herring</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1243944840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Conservation is a red herring: population growth will outstrip any resulting savings.</p></div><p>Then shouldn't we concentrate on negating population growth. IMO the population has outstripped the resources available and needs to be reduced from the current level.</p><p>Answers on a postcard<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Conservation is a red herring : population growth will outstrip any resulting savings.Then should n't we concentrate on negating population growth .
IMO the population has outstripped the resources available and needs to be reduced from the current level.Answers on a postcard .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conservation is a red herring: population growth will outstrip any resulting savings.Then shouldn't we concentrate on negating population growth.
IMO the population has outstripped the resources available and needs to be reduced from the current level.Answers on a postcard ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174079</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28185509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28179879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28189053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28180371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28185249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28178611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28185225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28180875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28183313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28179545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28180521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1859223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177179
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28185225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28180521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176851
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175781
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28180875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28178611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28189053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28176301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28185249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28179545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28179879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28183313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28185509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28180371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28174391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28173481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28177991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28175299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1859223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1859223.28186303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
