<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_11_149220</id>
	<title>How To Build a Quantum Propulsion Machine</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260547320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>KentuckyFC writes <i>"According to quantum mechanics, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum\_state">vacuum</a> will be filled with electromagnetic waves leaping in and out of existence. It turns out that these waves can have various measurable effects, such as the Casimir-Polder force, which was first measured accurately in 1997. Just how to exploit this force is still not clear. Now, however, a researcher at an Israeli government lab suggests how it could be possible to generate propulsion using the quantum vacuum. The basic idea is that pushing on the electromagnetic fields in the vacuum should generate an equal and opposite force. The suggestion is that this can be done using nanoparticles that interact with the vacuum's electric and magnetic fields, generating the well-known Lorentz force. In most cases, the sum of Lorentz forces adds up to zero. But today's breakthrough is the discovery of various ways to <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24499/">break this symmetry and so use the quantum vacuum to generate a force</a>. The simplest of these is simply to rotate the particles. So the blueprint for a quantum propulsion machine described in the paper is an array of addressable nanoparticles that can be rotated in the required way. Although such a machine will need a source of energy, it generates propulsion without any change in mass. As the research puts it with magesterial understatement, this might have practical implications."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>KentuckyFC writes " According to quantum mechanics , a vacuum will be filled with electromagnetic waves leaping in and out of existence .
It turns out that these waves can have various measurable effects , such as the Casimir-Polder force , which was first measured accurately in 1997 .
Just how to exploit this force is still not clear .
Now , however , a researcher at an Israeli government lab suggests how it could be possible to generate propulsion using the quantum vacuum .
The basic idea is that pushing on the electromagnetic fields in the vacuum should generate an equal and opposite force .
The suggestion is that this can be done using nanoparticles that interact with the vacuum 's electric and magnetic fields , generating the well-known Lorentz force .
In most cases , the sum of Lorentz forces adds up to zero .
But today 's breakthrough is the discovery of various ways to break this symmetry and so use the quantum vacuum to generate a force .
The simplest of these is simply to rotate the particles .
So the blueprint for a quantum propulsion machine described in the paper is an array of addressable nanoparticles that can be rotated in the required way .
Although such a machine will need a source of energy , it generates propulsion without any change in mass .
As the research puts it with magesterial understatement , this might have practical implications .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KentuckyFC writes "According to quantum mechanics, a vacuum will be filled with electromagnetic waves leaping in and out of existence.
It turns out that these waves can have various measurable effects, such as the Casimir-Polder force, which was first measured accurately in 1997.
Just how to exploit this force is still not clear.
Now, however, a researcher at an Israeli government lab suggests how it could be possible to generate propulsion using the quantum vacuum.
The basic idea is that pushing on the electromagnetic fields in the vacuum should generate an equal and opposite force.
The suggestion is that this can be done using nanoparticles that interact with the vacuum's electric and magnetic fields, generating the well-known Lorentz force.
In most cases, the sum of Lorentz forces adds up to zero.
But today's breakthrough is the discovery of various ways to break this symmetry and so use the quantum vacuum to generate a force.
The simplest of these is simply to rotate the particles.
So the blueprint for a quantum propulsion machine described in the paper is an array of addressable nanoparticles that can be rotated in the required way.
Although such a machine will need a source of energy, it generates propulsion without any change in mass.
As the research puts it with magesterial understatement, this might have practical implications.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404560</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260558300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just out of interest:

</p><p>A telegraph pole is ~10m long and about ~0.2m wide. Cross section: 0.03m^2. Volume: 0.3m^3.

</p><p>The density of tungsten is 19300 kg m^-3, so your tungsten telegraph pole masses about 6000kg.

</p><p>The relativistic momentum of an object is (m v) / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^-2: 13e13 Ns.

</p><p>The relativistic kinetic energy of a mass is (p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4)^-2, where p is the momentum: 4e21 joules.

</p><p>Assuming I've got my maths right, which given that it's late on Friday afternoon is highly questionable, that is a <i>very big number</i>. It's equal to about ten years worth of total planetary energy use. <i>And every single joule of that you have had to generate and feed to your drive.</i>

</p><p>So I don't think we're going to see relativistic kill vehicles any time soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just out of interest : A telegraph pole is ~ 10m long and about ~ 0.2m wide .
Cross section : 0.03m ^ 2 .
Volume : 0.3m ^ 3 .
The density of tungsten is 19300 kg m ^ -3 , so your tungsten telegraph pole masses about 6000kg .
The relativistic momentum of an object is ( m v ) / ( 1 - v ^ 2 / c ^ 2 ) ^ -2 : 13e13 Ns .
The relativistic kinetic energy of a mass is ( p ^ 2 c ^ 2 + m ^ 2 c ^ 4 ) ^ -2 , where p is the momentum : 4e21 joules .
Assuming I 've got my maths right , which given that it 's late on Friday afternoon is highly questionable , that is a very big number .
It 's equal to about ten years worth of total planetary energy use .
And every single joule of that you have had to generate and feed to your drive .
So I do n't think we 're going to see relativistic kill vehicles any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just out of interest:

A telegraph pole is ~10m long and about ~0.2m wide.
Cross section: 0.03m^2.
Volume: 0.3m^3.
The density of tungsten is 19300 kg m^-3, so your tungsten telegraph pole masses about 6000kg.
The relativistic momentum of an object is (m v) / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^-2: 13e13 Ns.
The relativistic kinetic energy of a mass is (p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4)^-2, where p is the momentum: 4e21 joules.
Assuming I've got my maths right, which given that it's late on Friday afternoon is highly questionable, that is a very big number.
It's equal to about ten years worth of total planetary energy use.
And every single joule of that you have had to generate and feed to your drive.
So I don't think we're going to see relativistic kill vehicles any time soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403582</id>
	<title>Re:Implications?</title>
	<author>fyngyrz</author>
	<datestamp>1260554460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If a spacecraft carries reaction mass, the total mass of the spacecraft is increased by the amount it is carrying at any one time. This mass must also be accelerated and decelerated. So the more you carry, the more you spend <i>because</i> you're carrying it. There are various side effects too, for instance, since the vehicle's mass changes over time, course change calculations have to keep track of that. Also, for every bit of mass you have to carry that is fuel, that's less cargo you can move from point A to point B.
</p><p>
If you have an energy source that is relatively mass constant - a nuclear reactor, or a set of solar panels - and you can piddle along without any tanks full of "stuff", you're going to be able to carry more payload; you're going to be able to go a lot longer without "refueling"; you're going to have more freedom and more range. Headed for asteroid X? Something interesting over there on Asteroid Y? No bothersome fuel constraints, you just go and take a look. That's the kind of benefit that has very positive ramifications.
</p><p>
The reason reaction mass is used in space is because in a vacuum, one has to push against something in order to move. That's the role of the reaction mass. You spend energy in X direction and get sent off in the -X direction with the same amount of energy.
</p><p>
Think of how a nuclear sub works underwater. Because it has something to push against (water), its ability to move is constrained only by the degree of push it can generate - it doesn't have to carry anything to push against, it's surrounded by water that will serve the purpose. The reactor provides a lot of energy to push with, using a propeller, which is designed so as to create a forward vectored force when spinning in the water. That's what the article suggests for space craft; that there is something there to push against, and therefore, one doesn't need to carry reaction mass. Spaceships using this method would be very much analogous to that nuclear submarine.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a spacecraft carries reaction mass , the total mass of the spacecraft is increased by the amount it is carrying at any one time .
This mass must also be accelerated and decelerated .
So the more you carry , the more you spend because you 're carrying it .
There are various side effects too , for instance , since the vehicle 's mass changes over time , course change calculations have to keep track of that .
Also , for every bit of mass you have to carry that is fuel , that 's less cargo you can move from point A to point B . If you have an energy source that is relatively mass constant - a nuclear reactor , or a set of solar panels - and you can piddle along without any tanks full of " stuff " , you 're going to be able to carry more payload ; you 're going to be able to go a lot longer without " refueling " ; you 're going to have more freedom and more range .
Headed for asteroid X ?
Something interesting over there on Asteroid Y ?
No bothersome fuel constraints , you just go and take a look .
That 's the kind of benefit that has very positive ramifications .
The reason reaction mass is used in space is because in a vacuum , one has to push against something in order to move .
That 's the role of the reaction mass .
You spend energy in X direction and get sent off in the -X direction with the same amount of energy .
Think of how a nuclear sub works underwater .
Because it has something to push against ( water ) , its ability to move is constrained only by the degree of push it can generate - it does n't have to carry anything to push against , it 's surrounded by water that will serve the purpose .
The reactor provides a lot of energy to push with , using a propeller , which is designed so as to create a forward vectored force when spinning in the water .
That 's what the article suggests for space craft ; that there is something there to push against , and therefore , one does n't need to carry reaction mass .
Spaceships using this method would be very much analogous to that nuclear submarine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If a spacecraft carries reaction mass, the total mass of the spacecraft is increased by the amount it is carrying at any one time.
This mass must also be accelerated and decelerated.
So the more you carry, the more you spend because you're carrying it.
There are various side effects too, for instance, since the vehicle's mass changes over time, course change calculations have to keep track of that.
Also, for every bit of mass you have to carry that is fuel, that's less cargo you can move from point A to point B.

If you have an energy source that is relatively mass constant - a nuclear reactor, or a set of solar panels - and you can piddle along without any tanks full of "stuff", you're going to be able to carry more payload; you're going to be able to go a lot longer without "refueling"; you're going to have more freedom and more range.
Headed for asteroid X?
Something interesting over there on Asteroid Y?
No bothersome fuel constraints, you just go and take a look.
That's the kind of benefit that has very positive ramifications.
The reason reaction mass is used in space is because in a vacuum, one has to push against something in order to move.
That's the role of the reaction mass.
You spend energy in X direction and get sent off in the -X direction with the same amount of energy.
Think of how a nuclear sub works underwater.
Because it has something to push against (water), its ability to move is constrained only by the degree of push it can generate - it doesn't have to carry anything to push against, it's surrounded by water that will serve the purpose.
The reactor provides a lot of energy to push with, using a propeller, which is designed so as to create a forward vectored force when spinning in the water.
That's what the article suggests for space craft; that there is something there to push against, and therefore, one doesn't need to carry reaction mass.
Spaceships using this method would be very much analogous to that nuclear submarine.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078</id>
	<title>Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1260556320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The existence of particles in a vacuum? That sounds exactly like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous\_aether" title="wikipedia.org">aether, a scientific theory that was abandoned about 200 years ago!</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The existence of particles in a vacuum ?
That sounds exactly like the aether , a scientific theory that was abandoned about 200 years ago !
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The existence of particles in a vacuum?
That sounds exactly like the aether, a scientific theory that was abandoned about 200 years ago!
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30442388</id>
	<title>Re:Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>RivenAleem</author>
	<datestamp>1260879900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The particles introduced into the vacuum come in a selection of fragrances.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake\_'n'\_Vac" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake\_'n'\_Vac</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The particles introduced into the vacuum come in a selection of fragrances.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake \ _'n ' \ _Vac [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The particles introduced into the vacuum come in a selection of fragrances.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake\_'n'\_Vac [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404064</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>skovnymfe</author>
	<datestamp>1260556260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, we could counter the global warming by moving earth out of the solar system.... wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , we could counter the global warming by moving earth out of the solar system.... wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, we could counter the global warming by moving earth out of the solar system.... wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407858</id>
	<title>So This the Bada-Quantum-Bing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260531000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Think of the virtual particles as a loan that *must* be repaid. The more that is loaned, the quicker that it must be repaid.</p></div></blockquote><p>First, you make my brain hurt. When brain hurt drink beer.</p><p>Next, whats the vig on virtual particles. If you miss a payment, does God send Jesus to break your knee caps?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of the virtual particles as a loan that * must * be repaid .
The more that is loaned , the quicker that it must be repaid.First , you make my brain hurt .
When brain hurt drink beer.Next , whats the vig on virtual particles .
If you miss a payment , does God send Jesus to break your knee caps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of the virtual particles as a loan that *must* be repaid.
The more that is loaned, the quicker that it must be repaid.First, you make my brain hurt.
When brain hurt drink beer.Next, whats the vig on virtual particles.
If you miss a payment, does God send Jesus to break your knee caps?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30408930</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>MadUndergrad</author>
	<datestamp>1260537120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably about how a bullet punches through an apple and keeps going.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjUTZH\_Vdxs" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjUTZH\_Vdxs</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably about how a bullet punches through an apple and keeps going.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = jjUTZH \ _Vdxs [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably about how a bullet punches through an apple and keeps going.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjUTZH\_Vdxs [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754</id>
	<title>Those daring men in their quantum pushing machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260551520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Well. </p><p>A non-reaction mass drive.  That makes my head hurt. It just gave a slight air of plausibility to a few million bad SF novels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well .
A non-reaction mass drive .
That makes my head hurt .
It just gave a slight air of plausibility to a few million bad SF novels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Well.
A non-reaction mass drive.
That makes my head hurt.
It just gave a slight air of plausibility to a few million bad SF novels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405710</id>
	<title>Re:what are we talking here?!</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1260563280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if you created a drive that only through off the mass you gains due to velocity, you mass would remain constant as your velocity increased.</p><p>Now you have FTL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if you created a drive that only through off the mass you gains due to velocity , you mass would remain constant as your velocity increased.Now you have FTL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if you created a drive that only through off the mass you gains due to velocity, you mass would remain constant as your velocity increased.Now you have FTL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30415210</id>
	<title>Re:Those daring men in their quantum pushing machi</title>
	<author>FoolishOwl</author>
	<datestamp>1260642540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My first thought was, "It's the 'thruster' technology from the roleplaying game, Traveller!"

My second was, "Traveller was wrong again. We didn't invent 'grav' propulsion first."</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought was , " It 's the 'thruster ' technology from the roleplaying game , Traveller !
" My second was , " Traveller was wrong again .
We did n't invent 'grav ' propulsion first .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought was, "It's the 'thruster' technology from the roleplaying game, Traveller!
"

My second was, "Traveller was wrong again.
We didn't invent 'grav' propulsion first.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406266</id>
	<title>Re:Nadesico?</title>
	<author>Akaihiryuu</author>
	<datestamp>1260523140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Known as Martian Successor Nadesico in the US.  Great anime, one of my favorites.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian\_Successor\_Nadesico" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian\_Successor\_Nadesico</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Known as Martian Successor Nadesico in the US .
Great anime , one of my favorites .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian \ _Successor \ _Nadesico [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Known as Martian Successor Nadesico in the US.
Great anime, one of my favorites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian\_Successor\_Nadesico [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404344</id>
	<title>Re:Those daring men in their quantum pushing machi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260557220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention the Dean drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the Dean drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the Dean drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30411044</id>
	<title>Re:ATTENTION</title>
	<author>Whiteox</author>
	<datestamp>1260553200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>YOU CAN JUST GO STRAIGHT ON TO BEING SKEPTICAL</p></div><p>I will <b>never release information</b> of my <i> Force-Vector Reactionless Drive</i> and will take it to my grave.</p><p>Well.. maybe (and I mean maybe) I could utter a few words about it if someone could arrange a bedfull of sex-starved, horney, voluptuous women for me and me only from now till eternity or till I die from exhaustion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>YOU CAN JUST GO STRAIGHT ON TO BEING SKEPTICALI will never release information of my Force-Vector Reactionless Drive and will take it to my grave.Well.. maybe ( and I mean maybe ) I could utter a few words about it if someone could arrange a bedfull of sex-starved , horney , voluptuous women for me and me only from now till eternity or till I die from exhaustion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YOU CAN JUST GO STRAIGHT ON TO BEING SKEPTICALI will never release information of my  Force-Vector Reactionless Drive and will take it to my grave.Well.. maybe (and I mean maybe) I could utter a few words about it if someone could arrange a bedfull of sex-starved, horney, voluptuous women for me and me only from now till eternity or till I die from exhaustion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405552</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260562560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aether was intended to explain the propagation of light in a vacuum, before it was realized that light did not need a transmission medium. Up to that point scientists always figured you needed a medium to transmit energy. Once we dismissed that concept, the idea was thrown out. Proving that something might pervade vacuum is a little different than bringing back the theory of aether.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aether was intended to explain the propagation of light in a vacuum , before it was realized that light did not need a transmission medium .
Up to that point scientists always figured you needed a medium to transmit energy .
Once we dismissed that concept , the idea was thrown out .
Proving that something might pervade vacuum is a little different than bringing back the theory of aether .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aether was intended to explain the propagation of light in a vacuum, before it was realized that light did not need a transmission medium.
Up to that point scientists always figured you needed a medium to transmit energy.
Once we dismissed that concept, the idea was thrown out.
Proving that something might pervade vacuum is a little different than bringing back the theory of aether.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30410984</id>
	<title>Re:The solution is simple...</title>
	<author>junglebeast</author>
	<datestamp>1260552540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like this:</p><p><a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/04/1226227/Overwhelming-Evidence-For-Magnetic-Monopoles" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/04/1226227/Overwhelming-Evidence-For-Magnetic-Monopoles</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>And this:</p><p><a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/01/30/1619244/Making-Magnetic-Monopoles-and-Other-Physics-Exotica" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/01/30/1619244/Making-Magnetic-Monopoles-and-Other-Physics-Exotica</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>And this:</p><p><a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/03/10/03/1648239/Evidence-of-Magnetic-Monopoles-Found" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/story/03/10/03/1648239/Evidence-of-Magnetic-Monopoles-Found</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like this : http : //science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/04/1226227/Overwhelming-Evidence-For-Magnetic-Monopoles [ slashdot.org ] And this : http : //science.slashdot.org/story/09/01/30/1619244/Making-Magnetic-Monopoles-and-Other-Physics-Exotica [ slashdot.org ] And this : http : //science.slashdot.org/story/03/10/03/1648239/Evidence-of-Magnetic-Monopoles-Found [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like this:http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/04/1226227/Overwhelming-Evidence-For-Magnetic-Monopoles [slashdot.org]And this:http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/01/30/1619244/Making-Magnetic-Monopoles-and-Other-Physics-Exotica [slashdot.org]And this:http://science.slashdot.org/story/03/10/03/1648239/Evidence-of-Magnetic-Monopoles-Found [slashdot.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404686</id>
	<title>Security?</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1260558840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man, the Stargate-Universe folks really need to control their script leaks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , the Stargate-Universe folks really need to control their script leaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, the Stargate-Universe folks really need to control their script leaks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404594</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't sound exciting at all...</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1260558420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting energy into space is easy.
You can grab it from nearby stars, or
you can carry a nuclear reactor with you.
Because a nuclear reactor converts mass
to energy via E=Mc^2, it produces a lot
of energy from a small mass.</p><p>The real problem is <em>reaction mass</em>.
You have to have something to push against
in order to move.  Getting a lot of reaction mass
into space is difficult.  If you can push against
the vacuum of space, that problem is solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting energy into space is easy .
You can grab it from nearby stars , or you can carry a nuclear reactor with you .
Because a nuclear reactor converts mass to energy via E = Mc ^ 2 , it produces a lot of energy from a small mass.The real problem is reaction mass .
You have to have something to push against in order to move .
Getting a lot of reaction mass into space is difficult .
If you can push against the vacuum of space , that problem is solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting energy into space is easy.
You can grab it from nearby stars, or
you can carry a nuclear reactor with you.
Because a nuclear reactor converts mass
to energy via E=Mc^2, it produces a lot
of energy from a small mass.The real problem is reaction mass.
You have to have something to push against
in order to move.
Getting a lot of reaction mass
into space is difficult.
If you can push against
the vacuum of space, that problem is solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406118</id>
	<title>Who cares about propulsion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260522240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same principle should apply for energy.  Use this phenomena with Lorentz force to generate an electrical current and viola...electrical energy from a quantum vacuum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same principle should apply for energy .
Use this phenomena with Lorentz force to generate an electrical current and viola...electrical energy from a quantum vacuum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same principle should apply for energy.
Use this phenomena with Lorentz force to generate an electrical current and viola...electrical energy from a quantum vacuum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404354</id>
	<title>Won't Somebody Please</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1260557280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of the other Universe?!</p><p>Abusing those quantum effects "leaping in and out of existence" in Universe A will only cause trouble for the people in Universe 1!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of the other Universe ?
! Abusing those quantum effects " leaping in and out of existence " in Universe A will only cause trouble for the people in Universe 1 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of the other Universe?
!Abusing those quantum effects "leaping in and out of existence" in Universe A will only cause trouble for the people in Universe 1!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404628</id>
	<title>Re:Momentum Conservation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260558600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've often wondered if it was possible to fab special chips with the right geometry to allow a net force in a direction by careful alignment of material such that virtual pairs got stuck in a consistant direction to pressure materials in a single direction.   While it might work at the end of the day the forces involved are soo damn small it still wouldn't get me or an ant a workable hoverboard<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(  Maybe if we could do the same on a large scale in bulk?  My math sucks.</p><p>FWIW casimar force push two stationary plates together, not apart.  I don't see any momentum issues as your pushing against the vaccume which has non-zero energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've often wondered if it was possible to fab special chips with the right geometry to allow a net force in a direction by careful alignment of material such that virtual pairs got stuck in a consistant direction to pressure materials in a single direction .
While it might work at the end of the day the forces involved are soo damn small it still would n't get me or an ant a workable hoverboard : ( Maybe if we could do the same on a large scale in bulk ?
My math sucks.FWIW casimar force push two stationary plates together , not apart .
I do n't see any momentum issues as your pushing against the vaccume which has non-zero energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've often wondered if it was possible to fab special chips with the right geometry to allow a net force in a direction by careful alignment of material such that virtual pairs got stuck in a consistant direction to pressure materials in a single direction.
While it might work at the end of the day the forces involved are soo damn small it still wouldn't get me or an ant a workable hoverboard :(  Maybe if we could do the same on a large scale in bulk?
My math sucks.FWIW casimar force push two stationary plates together, not apart.
I don't see any momentum issues as your pushing against the vaccume which has non-zero energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406094</id>
	<title>How To Build a Quantum Propulsion Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260522180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess Picard and Data never heard of this technology:</p><p>WORF: Probe now closing at fifteen point three metres per second. Collision course.<br>DATA: Captain, sensors are reading no particulate emissions or subspace field distortions.<br>PICARD: Then how is it able to move?<br>DATA: Method of propulsion is unknown, sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess Picard and Data never heard of this technology : WORF : Probe now closing at fifteen point three metres per second .
Collision course.DATA : Captain , sensors are reading no particulate emissions or subspace field distortions.PICARD : Then how is it able to move ? DATA : Method of propulsion is unknown , sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess Picard and Data never heard of this technology:WORF: Probe now closing at fifteen point three metres per second.
Collision course.DATA: Captain, sensors are reading no particulate emissions or subspace field distortions.PICARD: Then how is it able to move?DATA: Method of propulsion is unknown, sir.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403468</id>
	<title>It would require a change of mass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260554100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Casimir effect is real and can be used for propulsion but it would require a change of mass because momentum has to be conserved. The mass variation for unit of time would be equivalent to dm  = dE/c^2 where dE is the energy required for propulsion. The thing will move but slow and consume lots of energy. Yet it is an interesting device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Casimir effect is real and can be used for propulsion but it would require a change of mass because momentum has to be conserved .
The mass variation for unit of time would be equivalent to dm = dE/c ^ 2 where dE is the energy required for propulsion .
The thing will move but slow and consume lots of energy .
Yet it is an interesting device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Casimir effect is real and can be used for propulsion but it would require a change of mass because momentum has to be conserved.
The mass variation for unit of time would be equivalent to dm  = dE/c^2 where dE is the energy required for propulsion.
The thing will move but slow and consume lots of energy.
Yet it is an interesting device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403796</id>
	<title>Jet engines vs rockets?</title>
	<author>grimJester</author>
	<datestamp>1260555180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic force, so the two may be equivalent in some sense. However, naively thinking, wouldn't rotating a wheel that pushes on something be more efficient than a rocket? Jet engines are more efficient than rockets, but I don't know what principles are at work and don't know how they apply here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic force , so the two may be equivalent in some sense .
However , naively thinking , would n't rotating a wheel that pushes on something be more efficient than a rocket ?
Jet engines are more efficient than rockets , but I do n't know what principles are at work and do n't know how they apply here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic force, so the two may be equivalent in some sense.
However, naively thinking, wouldn't rotating a wheel that pushes on something be more efficient than a rocket?
Jet engines are more efficient than rockets, but I don't know what principles are at work and don't know how they apply here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403238</id>
	<title>Vindication!</title>
	<author>overshoot</author>
	<datestamp>1260553260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At last a theoretical basis for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean\_drive" title="wikipedia.org">Dean Drive</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>At last a theoretical basis for the Dean Drive [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At last a theoretical basis for the Dean Drive [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405764</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1260563520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not aether at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not aether at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not aether at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405390</id>
	<title>Re:Those daring men in their quantum pushing machi</title>
	<author>babymac</author>
	<datestamp>1260561720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first time I'd heard of a zero point drive was in Arthur Clarke's 3001.  While it's not his best book, he's not exactly a sci-fi slouch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first time I 'd heard of a zero point drive was in Arthur Clarke 's 3001 .
While it 's not his best book , he 's not exactly a sci-fi slouch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first time I'd heard of a zero point drive was in Arthur Clarke's 3001.
While it's not his best book, he's not exactly a sci-fi slouch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407002</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>rescendent</author>
	<datestamp>1260526260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if <br>
m = (e / c^2)  <br>
then  <br>
4e21 / (c * c) = 44 506kg <br> <br>

So if we could convert mass to energy 44 tonnes(or tons not sure) of mass should give you the energy. <br> <br>

You'd probably want to use it in spaceship to spaceship combat as I imagine a solid tungsten telegraph pole traveling at the speed of light would be mildly unfortunate for an entire planet...</htmltext>
<tokenext>if m = ( e / c ^ 2 ) then 4e21 / ( c * c ) = 44 506kg So if we could convert mass to energy 44 tonnes ( or tons not sure ) of mass should give you the energy .
You 'd probably want to use it in spaceship to spaceship combat as I imagine a solid tungsten telegraph pole traveling at the speed of light would be mildly unfortunate for an entire planet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if 
m = (e / c^2)  
then  
4e21 / (c * c) = 44 506kg  

So if we could convert mass to energy 44 tonnes(or tons not sure) of mass should give you the energy.
You'd probably want to use it in spaceship to spaceship combat as I imagine a solid tungsten telegraph pole traveling at the speed of light would be mildly unfortunate for an entire planet...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404278</id>
	<title>Michio Kaku</title>
	<author>earlymon</author>
	<datestamp>1260556920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prof Kaku has a show on the Science Channel called Sci-Fi Science.  I saw the episode this week on how to build a working warp drive.  Based on negative energy paper by researcher from Mexico's top university (sorry, can't remember name of prestigious institution or researcher) - sure sounds like the same sort of thing from TFA.</p><p>Apologies if it's just Friday thinking and the TV show and this new article aren't related - but I think they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prof Kaku has a show on the Science Channel called Sci-Fi Science .
I saw the episode this week on how to build a working warp drive .
Based on negative energy paper by researcher from Mexico 's top university ( sorry , ca n't remember name of prestigious institution or researcher ) - sure sounds like the same sort of thing from TFA.Apologies if it 's just Friday thinking and the TV show and this new article are n't related - but I think they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prof Kaku has a show on the Science Channel called Sci-Fi Science.
I saw the episode this week on how to build a working warp drive.
Based on negative energy paper by researcher from Mexico's top university (sorry, can't remember name of prestigious institution or researcher) - sure sounds like the same sort of thing from TFA.Apologies if it's just Friday thinking and the TV show and this new article aren't related - but I think they are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403726</id>
	<title>Re:First Lesson in Relativity...</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1260555000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>"Although the proposed engine will consume energy for manipulation of the particles, the propulsion will occur without any loss of mass," says Feigel.</p></div><p>
I'd like to see how that works. The one thing that even non-physicists know is that energy is equivalent to mass (E=mc2). This applies to all power. However the mass loss of a battery which discharges is negligible compared to the total mass hence it is usually neglected for energies below nuclear. Unless they can show otherwise my very strong suspicion is that they energy needed to manipulate the nano-particles will be identical to the energy needed to emit a photon of the same momentum. Until they can show this I do not see anything to be excited about.</p></div><p>The reason our spaceships don't have flashlights in the back is that the maximum force that can be produced using small scale light sources is rather low.  If this method works and allows the same momentum change as a photon drive but in 1/1000th the time, that's something to get excited about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Although the proposed engine will consume energy for manipulation of the particles , the propulsion will occur without any loss of mass , " says Feigel .
I 'd like to see how that works .
The one thing that even non-physicists know is that energy is equivalent to mass ( E = mc2 ) .
This applies to all power .
However the mass loss of a battery which discharges is negligible compared to the total mass hence it is usually neglected for energies below nuclear .
Unless they can show otherwise my very strong suspicion is that they energy needed to manipulate the nano-particles will be identical to the energy needed to emit a photon of the same momentum .
Until they can show this I do not see anything to be excited about.The reason our spaceships do n't have flashlights in the back is that the maximum force that can be produced using small scale light sources is rather low .
If this method works and allows the same momentum change as a photon drive but in 1/1000th the time , that 's something to get excited about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Although the proposed engine will consume energy for manipulation of the particles, the propulsion will occur without any loss of mass," says Feigel.
I'd like to see how that works.
The one thing that even non-physicists know is that energy is equivalent to mass (E=mc2).
This applies to all power.
However the mass loss of a battery which discharges is negligible compared to the total mass hence it is usually neglected for energies below nuclear.
Unless they can show otherwise my very strong suspicion is that they energy needed to manipulate the nano-particles will be identical to the energy needed to emit a photon of the same momentum.
Until they can show this I do not see anything to be excited about.The reason our spaceships don't have flashlights in the back is that the maximum force that can be produced using small scale light sources is rather low.
If this method works and allows the same momentum change as a photon drive but in 1/1000th the time, that's something to get excited about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405002</id>
	<title>Inert motor?</title>
	<author>OpenSourced</author>
	<datestamp>1260560100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the technical name for such a thing an "inert motor"? I was surprised at the article not using that term, but then made a search and discovered that the name is not so widespread as I thought. Is that the usual way of calling a motor that can work without using ejection of mass, or there is another way, or there is no established way? I had always liked that term, together with "cold light" (light source with no generated heat, do I have to revise that too?). But perhaps I'm old-fashioned, or just plain wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the technical name for such a thing an " inert motor " ?
I was surprised at the article not using that term , but then made a search and discovered that the name is not so widespread as I thought .
Is that the usual way of calling a motor that can work without using ejection of mass , or there is another way , or there is no established way ?
I had always liked that term , together with " cold light " ( light source with no generated heat , do I have to revise that too ? ) .
But perhaps I 'm old-fashioned , or just plain wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the technical name for such a thing an "inert motor"?
I was surprised at the article not using that term, but then made a search and discovered that the name is not so widespread as I thought.
Is that the usual way of calling a motor that can work without using ejection of mass, or there is another way, or there is no established way?
I had always liked that term, together with "cold light" (light source with no generated heat, do I have to revise that too?).
But perhaps I'm old-fashioned, or just plain wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403736</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation of M/E?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260555000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  Think of the virtual particles as a loan that *must* be repaid.  The more that is loaned, the quicker that it must be repaid.  electron/positron virtual pairs exist for a loner time than say virtual proteon/antiproton pairs do.  There is no way to use the creation of virtual pairs to create free energy or break the conservation laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Think of the virtual particles as a loan that * must * be repaid .
The more that is loaned , the quicker that it must be repaid .
electron/positron virtual pairs exist for a loner time than say virtual proteon/antiproton pairs do .
There is no way to use the creation of virtual pairs to create free energy or break the conservation laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Think of the virtual particles as a loan that *must* be repaid.
The more that is loaned, the quicker that it must be repaid.
electron/positron virtual pairs exist for a loner time than say virtual proteon/antiproton pairs do.
There is no way to use the creation of virtual pairs to create free energy or break the conservation laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30409298</id>
	<title>Power Generation?</title>
	<author>Aldhibah</author>
	<datestamp>1260540000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I you already have motion (for example the motion of the Earth around the Sun) would it be possible to use this type of device to extract energy from that momentum?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I you already have motion ( for example the motion of the Earth around the Sun ) would it be possible to use this type of device to extract energy from that momentum ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I you already have motion (for example the motion of the Earth around the Sun) would it be possible to use this type of device to extract energy from that momentum?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407816</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260530760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The bad news is that one will have to."<br>Why is this bad news? My dream is to fly around in space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The bad news is that one will have to .
" Why is this bad news ?
My dream is to fly around in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The bad news is that one will have to.
"Why is this bad news?
My dream is to fly around in space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30413876</id>
	<title>Re:Implications?</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1260632700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a misunderstanding here.  You still have to carry a power source, so you still must carry mass.  And the same rule still applies: You must carry more energy to go further, and more energy means more mass.  I'm not sure this discovery really helps with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a misunderstanding here .
You still have to carry a power source , so you still must carry mass .
And the same rule still applies : You must carry more energy to go further , and more energy means more mass .
I 'm not sure this discovery really helps with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a misunderstanding here.
You still have to carry a power source, so you still must carry mass.
And the same rule still applies: You must carry more energy to go further, and more energy means more mass.
I'm not sure this discovery really helps with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407194</id>
	<title>Where's my hoverboard?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260527100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>guess we have to wait for a Mr. Fusion unit first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>guess we have to wait for a Mr. Fusion unit first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>guess we have to wait for a Mr. Fusion unit first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404552</id>
	<title>Re:ATTENTION</title>
	<author>geckipede</author>
	<datestamp>1260558240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That could only work if the vacuum had a velocity in relation to the craft - a preferred reference frame of its own. The whole point of relativity is that there is no such priviliged reference frame.<br> <br>Without that, there's nothing to define how much you have accelerated, nothing the crafts own frame can relate to, so constant power into such a system ought to create constant force. With a fixed mass, that means that you're putting kinetic energy into the system linearly with respect to speed, but gaining kinetic energy proportional to the square. Good old KE=0.5mv^2</htmltext>
<tokenext>That could only work if the vacuum had a velocity in relation to the craft - a preferred reference frame of its own .
The whole point of relativity is that there is no such priviliged reference frame .
Without that , there 's nothing to define how much you have accelerated , nothing the crafts own frame can relate to , so constant power into such a system ought to create constant force .
With a fixed mass , that means that you 're putting kinetic energy into the system linearly with respect to speed , but gaining kinetic energy proportional to the square .
Good old KE = 0.5mv ^ 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That could only work if the vacuum had a velocity in relation to the craft - a preferred reference frame of its own.
The whole point of relativity is that there is no such priviliged reference frame.
Without that, there's nothing to define how much you have accelerated, nothing the crafts own frame can relate to, so constant power into such a system ought to create constant force.
With a fixed mass, that means that you're putting kinetic energy into the system linearly with respect to speed, but gaining kinetic energy proportional to the square.
Good old KE=0.5mv^2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407602</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260529500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How big of an explosion would this cause if it impacted Earth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How big of an explosion would this cause if it impacted Earth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How big of an explosion would this cause if it impacted Earth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403164</id>
	<title>Re:Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>FTWinston</author>
	<datestamp>1260552960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're not launching these spinning particles into the vacuum, they're just spinning while attached on the ass-end of your space ship.
<br> <br>Alternatively (if you're talking about the <i>other</i> particles), see the other response.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not launching these spinning particles into the vacuum , they 're just spinning while attached on the ass-end of your space ship .
Alternatively ( if you 're talking about the other particles ) , see the other response .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not launching these spinning particles into the vacuum, they're just spinning while attached on the ass-end of your space ship.
Alternatively (if you're talking about the other particles), see the other response.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407136</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1260526800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>However, there's a darker side to that coin. If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty, there's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship (or for that matter, a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.99c) on them.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you can get out of Earth orbit, it's pretty damn inexpensive RIGHT NOW to give a meteor a nudge in the right direction, too...  Or dig up a chunk of the moon and give it a push towards the Earth.</p><p>In short, there are cheaper and easier options, which don't even require this propulsion method.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , there 's a darker side to that coin .
If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty , there 's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship ( or for that matter , a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at .99c ) on them.If you can get out of Earth orbit , it 's pretty damn inexpensive RIGHT NOW to give a meteor a nudge in the right direction , too... Or dig up a chunk of the moon and give it a push towards the Earth.In short , there are cheaper and easier options , which do n't even require this propulsion method .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, there's a darker side to that coin.
If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty, there's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship (or for that matter, a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at .99c) on them.If you can get out of Earth orbit, it's pretty damn inexpensive RIGHT NOW to give a meteor a nudge in the right direction, too...  Or dig up a chunk of the moon and give it a push towards the Earth.In short, there are cheaper and easier options, which don't even require this propulsion method.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406238</id>
	<title>Something to consider:</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1260523020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The paper is a one-author publication in a non-peer-reviewed journal and doesn't seem to be published anywhere else. The author's affiliation is an applied R&amp;D institute not an academic institute with a strong theoretical background. I'm not saying that discredits it, but it certainly means that it should be taken with a grain of salt. I would suggest that anyone who wants to assess the merits should read through some of the references (which are good publications) and see if the present article appears plausible. Even without any technical expertise, the abstracts could probably provide a feel for the state of the art.</p><p>I couldn't be bothered to do that reading myself, but I would suggest that any momentum transfer to the vacuum would involve the production of real particles from the zero-point fluctuations. Conservation of momentum demands that there would be something carrying momentum in the opposite direction of the spacecraft and, by definition, it can't be an unexcited quantum field. There would have to be excitations of the field to carry the momentum (real particles).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The paper is a one-author publication in a non-peer-reviewed journal and does n't seem to be published anywhere else .
The author 's affiliation is an applied R&amp;D institute not an academic institute with a strong theoretical background .
I 'm not saying that discredits it , but it certainly means that it should be taken with a grain of salt .
I would suggest that anyone who wants to assess the merits should read through some of the references ( which are good publications ) and see if the present article appears plausible .
Even without any technical expertise , the abstracts could probably provide a feel for the state of the art.I could n't be bothered to do that reading myself , but I would suggest that any momentum transfer to the vacuum would involve the production of real particles from the zero-point fluctuations .
Conservation of momentum demands that there would be something carrying momentum in the opposite direction of the spacecraft and , by definition , it ca n't be an unexcited quantum field .
There would have to be excitations of the field to carry the momentum ( real particles ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The paper is a one-author publication in a non-peer-reviewed journal and doesn't seem to be published anywhere else.
The author's affiliation is an applied R&amp;D institute not an academic institute with a strong theoretical background.
I'm not saying that discredits it, but it certainly means that it should be taken with a grain of salt.
I would suggest that anyone who wants to assess the merits should read through some of the references (which are good publications) and see if the present article appears plausible.
Even without any technical expertise, the abstracts could probably provide a feel for the state of the art.I couldn't be bothered to do that reading myself, but I would suggest that any momentum transfer to the vacuum would involve the production of real particles from the zero-point fluctuations.
Conservation of momentum demands that there would be something carrying momentum in the opposite direction of the spacecraft and, by definition, it can't be an unexcited quantum field.
There would have to be excitations of the field to carry the momentum (real particles).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404030</id>
	<title>Impulse drive Mr. Sulu</title>
	<author>fuzed</author>
	<datestamp>1260556140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which Trek verse are we in now, Captain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which Trek verse are we in now , Captain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which Trek verse are we in now, Captain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403940</id>
	<title>The solution is simple...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1260555840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, assume you have a magnetic monopole. From there, the math is easy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , assume you have a magnetic monopole .
From there , the math is easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, assume you have a magnetic monopole.
From there, the math is easy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403104</id>
	<title>Any Physicists here?</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1260552720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will this gizmo work? A reactionless drive almost sounds too good to be true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this gizmo work ?
A reactionless drive almost sounds too good to be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this gizmo work?
A reactionless drive almost sounds too good to be true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404212</id>
	<title>Oh, and if this works ...</title>
	<author>rpresser</author>
	<datestamp>1260556800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the poster on TR, I recommend this be dubbed the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Spindizzy" title="wikipedia.com">Spindizzy effect.</a> [wikipedia.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the poster on TR , I recommend this be dubbed the Spindizzy effect .
[ wikipedia.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the poster on TR, I recommend this be dubbed the Spindizzy effect.
[wikipedia.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403252</id>
	<title>Solving a solved problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260553260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Norwegians already have a wormhole to the other side of the galaxy, why are we wasting time on this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Norwegians already have a wormhole to the other side of the galaxy , why are we wasting time on this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Norwegians already have a wormhole to the other side of the galaxy, why are we wasting time on this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402960</id>
	<title>Probably the only chance there is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something like this is probably the only chance there is for interstellar space travel. The two biggest problems in traveling between stars are first having a source of energy that will last long enough to make it there, and second having the mass for propulsion needed to make it there. Between stars, there's not a lot you can push against so you have to carry your mass with you, and for corrections on an interstellar flight that could add up to a lot of mass. Either that or hope when you shoot out of the Solar system that you're aimed exactly right. However, if there is something to push against, problem 2 is solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something like this is probably the only chance there is for interstellar space travel .
The two biggest problems in traveling between stars are first having a source of energy that will last long enough to make it there , and second having the mass for propulsion needed to make it there .
Between stars , there 's not a lot you can push against so you have to carry your mass with you , and for corrections on an interstellar flight that could add up to a lot of mass .
Either that or hope when you shoot out of the Solar system that you 're aimed exactly right .
However , if there is something to push against , problem 2 is solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something like this is probably the only chance there is for interstellar space travel.
The two biggest problems in traveling between stars are first having a source of energy that will last long enough to make it there, and second having the mass for propulsion needed to make it there.
Between stars, there's not a lot you can push against so you have to carry your mass with you, and for corrections on an interstellar flight that could add up to a lot of mass.
Either that or hope when you shoot out of the Solar system that you're aimed exactly right.
However, if there is something to push against, problem 2 is solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406670</id>
	<title>emDrive</title>
	<author>isochroma</author>
	<datestamp>1260524820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Old hat.

emDrive already works, demonstrated here:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3\_aRiUXs&amp;fmt=18" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3\_aRiUXs&amp;fmt=18</a> [youtube.com]

Uses microwaves in an enclosed cavity to transform lots of electricity into a bit of reactionless drive.

emDrive Home: <a href="http://www.emdrive.com/" title="emdrive.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.emdrive.com/</a> [emdrive.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Old hat .
emDrive already works , demonstrated here : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 57q3 \ _aRiUXs&amp;fmt = 18 [ youtube.com ] Uses microwaves in an enclosed cavity to transform lots of electricity into a bit of reactionless drive .
emDrive Home : http : //www.emdrive.com/ [ emdrive.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old hat.
emDrive already works, demonstrated here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3\_aRiUXs&amp;fmt=18 [youtube.com]

Uses microwaves in an enclosed cavity to transform lots of electricity into a bit of reactionless drive.
emDrive Home: http://www.emdrive.com/ [emdrive.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402988</id>
	<title>Re:Momentum Conservation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law of conservation of momentum was repealed in 1905.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law of conservation of momentum was repealed in 1905 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law of conservation of momentum was repealed in 1905.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403778</id>
	<title>The important number is Thrust</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1260555120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already have theoretical designs for reaction-mass-less propulsion: the flashlight rocket - powered by photon momentum.  The question is, if this can be made practical, does it have a better power-to-thrust ratio than a photon rocket?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have theoretical designs for reaction-mass-less propulsion : the flashlight rocket - powered by photon momentum .
The question is , if this can be made practical , does it have a better power-to-thrust ratio than a photon rocket ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have theoretical designs for reaction-mass-less propulsion: the flashlight rocket - powered by photon momentum.
The question is, if this can be made practical, does it have a better power-to-thrust ratio than a photon rocket?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870</id>
	<title>Re:Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>Luyseyal</author>
	<datestamp>1260552000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It turns out that there is no such thing as a classical vacuum. Instead, you have a state where particle/antiparticle pairs are spontaneously created and destroyed with typically net zero force. So, the definition of vacuum has been reformed.</p><p>-l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It turns out that there is no such thing as a classical vacuum .
Instead , you have a state where particle/antiparticle pairs are spontaneously created and destroyed with typically net zero force .
So , the definition of vacuum has been reformed.-l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It turns out that there is no such thing as a classical vacuum.
Instead, you have a state where particle/antiparticle pairs are spontaneously created and destroyed with typically net zero force.
So, the definition of vacuum has been reformed.-l</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406638</id>
	<title>Gravity</title>
	<author>eav</author>
	<datestamp>1260524640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this imply as well the possibility of a localized "artificial gravity"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this imply as well the possibility of a localized " artificial gravity " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this imply as well the possibility of a localized "artificial gravity"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405646</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1260562980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't a tungsten telephone pole going<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.99c punch right through the Earth and keep going?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't a tungsten telephone pole going .99c punch right through the Earth and keep going ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't a tungsten telephone pole going .99c punch right through the Earth and keep going?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405314</id>
	<title>Einstien would disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260561420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with the assessment that no mass would be lost. I know of a popular equation relating energy to mass...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with the assessment that no mass would be lost .
I know of a popular equation relating energy to mass.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with the assessment that no mass would be lost.
I know of a popular equation relating energy to mass...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404150</id>
	<title>I knew I should have kept that CDC 6600</title>
	<author>GreenTom</author>
	<datestamp>1260556560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<br> <br>
The beauty of Feigel's idea is that it can be easily tested. He suggests building an addressable array of magnetoelectric nanoparticles, perhaps made of a material such as FeGaO3 which has a magnetoelectric constant of 10^-4 in a weak magnetic field.
<br> <br>
So is he saying that just by fliping the bits in some old core memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic\_core\_memory), you can produce thrust?</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : The beauty of Feigel 's idea is that it can be easily tested .
He suggests building an addressable array of magnetoelectric nanoparticles , perhaps made of a material such as FeGaO3 which has a magnetoelectric constant of 10 ^ -4 in a weak magnetic field .
So is he saying that just by fliping the bits in some old core memory ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic \ _core \ _memory ) , you can produce thrust ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: 
The beauty of Feigel's idea is that it can be easily tested.
He suggests building an addressable array of magnetoelectric nanoparticles, perhaps made of a material such as FeGaO3 which has a magnetoelectric constant of 10^-4 in a weak magnetic field.
So is he saying that just by fliping the bits in some old core memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic\_core\_memory), you can produce thrust?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407508</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260529020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why am i thinking the optimal shape for a spacecraft using this rotatey-particley technology would be disc-shaped with a bump on top ?<br>do you suppose it might exhibit 'impossible' aeronautical feats, have a tractor beam, take rectal samples of local fauna, and leave crop circles in it's wake ?<br>will i *finally* get my jetson's car ? !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why am i thinking the optimal shape for a spacecraft using this rotatey-particley technology would be disc-shaped with a bump on top ? do you suppose it might exhibit 'impossible ' aeronautical feats , have a tractor beam , take rectal samples of local fauna , and leave crop circles in it 's wake ? will i * finally * get my jetson 's car ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why am i thinking the optimal shape for a spacecraft using this rotatey-particley technology would be disc-shaped with a bump on top ?do you suppose it might exhibit 'impossible' aeronautical feats, have a tractor beam, take rectal samples of local fauna, and leave crop circles in it's wake ?will i *finally* get my jetson's car ?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405936</id>
	<title>Perpetual motion</title>
	<author>tadauphoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1260564360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Borrowing from another phase. From our perception it's perpetual. Where the return is... that's not for us humans to think about. But this is how to achieve it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Borrowing from another phase .
From our perception it 's perpetual .
Where the return is... that 's not for us humans to think about .
But this is how to achieve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Borrowing from another phase.
From our perception it's perpetual.
Where the return is... that's not for us humans to think about.
But this is how to achieve it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403270</id>
	<title>Re:Probably the only chance there is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260553320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something to push against?  Hunh?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. mass for propulsion to make it there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...? Hunh? again. Once you're up to speed, you switch off and coast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something to push against ?
Hunh ? .. mass for propulsion to make it there ... ?
Hunh ? again .
Once you 're up to speed , you switch off and coast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something to push against?
Hunh? .. mass for propulsion to make it there ...?
Hunh? again.
Once you're up to speed, you switch off and coast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403928</id>
	<title>Re:Those daring men in their quantum pushing machi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260555720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only I had a fairly decent and large working trans-capacitor and an array of coils that would produce a rotating magnetic field that can be focused to a tight area so there would be a high flux gradient. (Likely one coil to act as a genric strong magnetic source, another one for torsion, and a third that acts to compress the others to pinch the field in the active region of the trans-capacitor.) Then there's something going on where you're bouncing a charge from side to side where this rotating magnetic field wants to shoot the electrons off to one side. So in a way it might even resemble an awkwardly repurposed magnetron. Still, thinking of the crazy stuff that I come up with, that's probably too stupid to work.</p><p>I'd imagine in principle it's akin to an ice skater doing one of those spins, but always pulling in the arm facing north and letting out the arm facing south, and somehow not significantly shifting the center of gravity while still shifting the center of mass. Or something like that. But is that really possible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only I had a fairly decent and large working trans-capacitor and an array of coils that would produce a rotating magnetic field that can be focused to a tight area so there would be a high flux gradient .
( Likely one coil to act as a genric strong magnetic source , another one for torsion , and a third that acts to compress the others to pinch the field in the active region of the trans-capacitor .
) Then there 's something going on where you 're bouncing a charge from side to side where this rotating magnetic field wants to shoot the electrons off to one side .
So in a way it might even resemble an awkwardly repurposed magnetron .
Still , thinking of the crazy stuff that I come up with , that 's probably too stupid to work.I 'd imagine in principle it 's akin to an ice skater doing one of those spins , but always pulling in the arm facing north and letting out the arm facing south , and somehow not significantly shifting the center of gravity while still shifting the center of mass .
Or something like that .
But is that really possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only I had a fairly decent and large working trans-capacitor and an array of coils that would produce a rotating magnetic field that can be focused to a tight area so there would be a high flux gradient.
(Likely one coil to act as a genric strong magnetic source, another one for torsion, and a third that acts to compress the others to pinch the field in the active region of the trans-capacitor.
) Then there's something going on where you're bouncing a charge from side to side where this rotating magnetic field wants to shoot the electrons off to one side.
So in a way it might even resemble an awkwardly repurposed magnetron.
Still, thinking of the crazy stuff that I come up with, that's probably too stupid to work.I'd imagine in principle it's akin to an ice skater doing one of those spins, but always pulling in the arm facing north and letting out the arm facing south, and somehow not significantly shifting the center of gravity while still shifting the center of mass.
Or something like that.
But is that really possible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403280</id>
	<title>from Peter to Paul</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1260553380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds like HHGG's cretins travelling back in time to steal stuff from the past, only to find out the future bastards are doing the same to them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like HHGG 's cretins travelling back in time to steal stuff from the past , only to find out the future bastards are doing the same to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like HHGG's cretins travelling back in time to steal stuff from the past, only to find out the future bastards are doing the same to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404788</id>
	<title>Re:Is this different from a photon drive</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1260559320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And since we're talking electromagnetism, a really strong force in the grand scheme of things, maybe this will be a lot of energy efficient that simply throwing almost-massless particles out your rear.</p></div></blockquote><p>Since it is a momentum-transfer (hence, reaction) drive, it would seem to face the same constraints as any such drive imposed by conservation of energy, so in the ideal case, it would perform exactly the same as an ideal photon drive. Of course, engineering efficiencies might, in practice, favor one over the other, but even an ideal photon drives has an enormous input power to thrust ratio on the order of 300MW per Newton of thrust.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And since we 're talking electromagnetism , a really strong force in the grand scheme of things , maybe this will be a lot of energy efficient that simply throwing almost-massless particles out your rear.Since it is a momentum-transfer ( hence , reaction ) drive , it would seem to face the same constraints as any such drive imposed by conservation of energy , so in the ideal case , it would perform exactly the same as an ideal photon drive .
Of course , engineering efficiencies might , in practice , favor one over the other , but even an ideal photon drives has an enormous input power to thrust ratio on the order of 300MW per Newton of thrust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And since we're talking electromagnetism, a really strong force in the grand scheme of things, maybe this will be a lot of energy efficient that simply throwing almost-massless particles out your rear.Since it is a momentum-transfer (hence, reaction) drive, it would seem to face the same constraints as any such drive imposed by conservation of energy, so in the ideal case, it would perform exactly the same as an ideal photon drive.
Of course, engineering efficiencies might, in practice, favor one over the other, but even an ideal photon drives has an enormous input power to thrust ratio on the order of 300MW per Newton of thrust.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403692</id>
	<title>Re:Momentum Conservation</title>
	<author>FibreOptix</author>
	<datestamp>1260554880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually you're getting momentum out of less than thin air.

The short answer is that photons are quasi-particles that are the quanta of the electromagnetic field, which you still have in the vacuum, and can do collisions with. See Surface Plasmon Resonance for a practical application of a natural phenomena that works precisely because of the conservation of momentum between a photon and plasmon polaritons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually you 're getting momentum out of less than thin air .
The short answer is that photons are quasi-particles that are the quanta of the electromagnetic field , which you still have in the vacuum , and can do collisions with .
See Surface Plasmon Resonance for a practical application of a natural phenomena that works precisely because of the conservation of momentum between a photon and plasmon polaritons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually you're getting momentum out of less than thin air.
The short answer is that photons are quasi-particles that are the quanta of the electromagnetic field, which you still have in the vacuum, and can do collisions with.
See Surface Plasmon Resonance for a practical application of a natural phenomena that works precisely because of the conservation of momentum between a photon and plasmon polaritons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404854</id>
	<title>Re:ATTENTION</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1260559560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Work" isn't the problem, momentum is. You have to satisfy <em>both</em> conservation of energy <em>and</em> conservation of momentum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Work " is n't the problem , momentum is .
You have to satisfy both conservation of energy and conservation of momentum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Work" isn't the problem, momentum is.
You have to satisfy both conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403060</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZPM's!  We'll be able to retire the aging <a href="http://www.deepscience.com/justsilly/fun006.html" title="deepscience.com" rel="nofollow">buttered cat array</a> [deepscience.com] fleet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZPM 's !
We 'll be able to retire the aging buttered cat array [ deepscience.com ] fleet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZPM's!
We'll be able to retire the aging buttered cat array [deepscience.com] fleet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30459004</id>
	<title>Re:Why did noone tell me it was the future?</title>
	<author>mkarcher</author>
	<datestamp>1259688420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does it mean that I am old because I look around every day and it feels like I am living in a surreal sci-fi story?</p><p>Reactionless drives, energy weapons, smart phones, robotic killing machines, genetically engineered super species? At this rate I wonder if I would be surprised when practical AI or faster than light travel becomes an option.</p></div><p>I'm sorry to say, but practical AI and faster than light travel will probably make our kids feel like they're living in the future.  On the bright side, I don't know whether I'm being optimistic or pessimistic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it mean that I am old because I look around every day and it feels like I am living in a surreal sci-fi story ? Reactionless drives , energy weapons , smart phones , robotic killing machines , genetically engineered super species ?
At this rate I wonder if I would be surprised when practical AI or faster than light travel becomes an option.I 'm sorry to say , but practical AI and faster than light travel will probably make our kids feel like they 're living in the future .
On the bright side , I do n't know whether I 'm being optimistic or pessimistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it mean that I am old because I look around every day and it feels like I am living in a surreal sci-fi story?Reactionless drives, energy weapons, smart phones, robotic killing machines, genetically engineered super species?
At this rate I wonder if I would be surprised when practical AI or faster than light travel becomes an option.I'm sorry to say, but practical AI and faster than light travel will probably make our kids feel like they're living in the future.
On the bright side, I don't know whether I'm being optimistic or pessimistic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404046</id>
	<title>Re:Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260556140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So; where does this sit in the AGW slugfest?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So ; where does this sit in the AGW slugfest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So; where does this sit in the AGW slugfest?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407522</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't sound exciting at all...</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1260529080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't trust anything with "Quantum" in the name to function anymore then my decade old Car engine.</p></div></blockquote><p>I guess you never bought your hard disks from a certain company.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't trust anything with " Quantum " in the name to function anymore then my decade old Car engine.I guess you never bought your hard disks from a certain company .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't trust anything with "Quantum" in the name to function anymore then my decade old Car engine.I guess you never bought your hard disks from a certain company.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405950</id>
	<title>Re:Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1260564420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your Hoover won't work in outer space.</p><p>Think about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Hoover wo n't work in outer space.Think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your Hoover won't work in outer space.Think about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403598</id>
	<title>Understatement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260554520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this ever does get made into a propulsion system that changes the world(s), the phrase "this might have practical implications" will be up there alongside "one small step for man".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this ever does get made into a propulsion system that changes the world ( s ) , the phrase " this might have practical implications " will be up there alongside " one small step for man " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this ever does get made into a propulsion system that changes the world(s), the phrase "this might have practical implications" will be up there alongside "one small step for man".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30408098</id>
	<title>Hybrid space ships!</title>
	<author>Chirs</author>
	<datestamp>1260532500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something that nobody has mentioned yet is that if we're coupling to the surrounding vacuum to accelerate ourselves, we should be able to couple to the vacuum to decelerate ourselves, \_and store the energy from the deceleration\_.</p><p>Given big enough energy storage devices, we can then use that energy to accelerate on the next trip, and the net energy cost per trip is substantially reduced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that nobody has mentioned yet is that if we 're coupling to the surrounding vacuum to accelerate ourselves , we should be able to couple to the vacuum to decelerate ourselves , \ _and store the energy from the deceleration \ _.Given big enough energy storage devices , we can then use that energy to accelerate on the next trip , and the net energy cost per trip is substantially reduced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that nobody has mentioned yet is that if we're coupling to the surrounding vacuum to accelerate ourselves, we should be able to couple to the vacuum to decelerate ourselves, \_and store the energy from the deceleration\_.Given big enough energy storage devices, we can then use that energy to accelerate on the next trip, and the net energy cost per trip is substantially reduced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404562</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1260558300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Virtual particles are well established both theoretically and experimentally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtual particles are well established both theoretically and experimentally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtual particles are well established both theoretically and experimentally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403170</id>
	<title>Nadesico?</title>
	<author>certron</author>
	<datestamp>1260553020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds a whole lot like the way the engines work in the anime Kidou Senkan Nadesico. There's even a helpful animation played to explain it all to the crew and passengers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds a whole lot like the way the engines work in the anime Kidou Senkan Nadesico .
There 's even a helpful animation played to explain it all to the crew and passengers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds a whole lot like the way the engines work in the anime Kidou Senkan Nadesico.
There's even a helpful animation played to explain it all to the crew and passengers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30408286</id>
	<title>requires 18000kg of antimatter</title>
	<author>Chirs</author>
	<datestamp>1260533640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The energy required to accelerate mass m to 0.99c is roughly 6mc^2.</p><p>Mass M of antimatter reacts with M of matter to give 2Mc^2 of energy, so we need at least 18000kg of antimatter (and the same of matter) to generate enough energy to accelerate our tungsten telegraph pole to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.99c.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The energy required to accelerate mass m to 0.99c is roughly 6mc ^ 2.Mass M of antimatter reacts with M of matter to give 2Mc ^ 2 of energy , so we need at least 18000kg of antimatter ( and the same of matter ) to generate enough energy to accelerate our tungsten telegraph pole to .99c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The energy required to accelerate mass m to 0.99c is roughly 6mc^2.Mass M of antimatter reacts with M of matter to give 2Mc^2 of energy, so we need at least 18000kg of antimatter (and the same of matter) to generate enough energy to accelerate our tungsten telegraph pole to .99c.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405052</id>
	<title>Wild Optimism</title>
	<author>oren</author>
	<datestamp>1260560340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We may get flying cars in my lifetime after all! And cheap space travel! And... and...

Ok, ok. But admit it is nice to contemplate, even for a few moments<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>We may get flying cars in my lifetime after all !
And cheap space travel !
And... and.. . Ok , ok. But admit it is nice to contemplate , even for a few moments : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We may get flying cars in my lifetime after all!
And cheap space travel!
And... and...

Ok, ok. But admit it is nice to contemplate, even for a few moments :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405554</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1260562560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The existence of particles in a vacuum? That sounds exactly like the aether, a scientific theory that was abandoned about 200 years ago!</i></p><p>Which is pretty much exactly what Dirac said when he first proposed the theory this is based on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The existence of particles in a vacuum ?
That sounds exactly like the aether , a scientific theory that was abandoned about 200 years ago ! Which is pretty much exactly what Dirac said when he first proposed the theory this is based on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The existence of particles in a vacuum?
That sounds exactly like the aether, a scientific theory that was abandoned about 200 years ago!Which is pretty much exactly what Dirac said when he first proposed the theory this is based on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404514</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1260558060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A reactionless drive would be nifty because it can gather kinetic energy very easily (that's what makes travel so cheap with one). However, there's a darker side to that coin. If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty, there's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship (or for that matter, a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.99c) on them.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The main attraction of the idea of reactionless drives is that, since delta-V isn't limited by reaction mass, you can theoretically get arbitrarily close to C, presuming you can power the drive long enough. This doesn't necessarily mean "easily".</p><p>OTOH, this <b>isn't</b> a reactionless drive (which makes it less implausible, since such drives necessarily violate both conservation of momentum--obviously--and also the conservation of energy independent of reference frame, since they make changes in kinetic energy reference frame dependent), but a special kind of reaction drive since it involves transfer of (and preserves conservation of) momentum. Unless it still violates conservation of energy, it is still limited by conservation of energy, which means you'll still have to be able to generate usable energy at least equal to the change in kinetic energy you want to acheive, which even given the ability to convert matter directly into usable energy with 100\% efficieny means to accelerate to 0.5c you'd need to convert 1/4 of the mass you were accelerating into energy to power the system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A reactionless drive would be nifty because it can gather kinetic energy very easily ( that 's what makes travel so cheap with one ) .
However , there 's a darker side to that coin .
If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty , there 's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship ( or for that matter , a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at .99c ) on them .
The main attraction of the idea of reactionless drives is that , since delta-V is n't limited by reaction mass , you can theoretically get arbitrarily close to C , presuming you can power the drive long enough .
This does n't necessarily mean " easily " .OTOH , this is n't a reactionless drive ( which makes it less implausible , since such drives necessarily violate both conservation of momentum--obviously--and also the conservation of energy independent of reference frame , since they make changes in kinetic energy reference frame dependent ) , but a special kind of reaction drive since it involves transfer of ( and preserves conservation of ) momentum .
Unless it still violates conservation of energy , it is still limited by conservation of energy , which means you 'll still have to be able to generate usable energy at least equal to the change in kinetic energy you want to acheive , which even given the ability to convert matter directly into usable energy with 100 \ % efficieny means to accelerate to 0.5c you 'd need to convert 1/4 of the mass you were accelerating into energy to power the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A reactionless drive would be nifty because it can gather kinetic energy very easily (that's what makes travel so cheap with one).
However, there's a darker side to that coin.
If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty, there's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship (or for that matter, a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at .99c) on them.
The main attraction of the idea of reactionless drives is that, since delta-V isn't limited by reaction mass, you can theoretically get arbitrarily close to C, presuming you can power the drive long enough.
This doesn't necessarily mean "easily".OTOH, this isn't a reactionless drive (which makes it less implausible, since such drives necessarily violate both conservation of momentum--obviously--and also the conservation of energy independent of reference frame, since they make changes in kinetic energy reference frame dependent), but a special kind of reaction drive since it involves transfer of (and preserves conservation of) momentum.
Unless it still violates conservation of energy, it is still limited by conservation of energy, which means you'll still have to be able to generate usable energy at least equal to the change in kinetic energy you want to acheive, which even given the ability to convert matter directly into usable energy with 100\% efficieny means to accelerate to 0.5c you'd need to convert 1/4 of the mass you were accelerating into energy to power the system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405248</id>
	<title>Re:Boy did I read that headline wrong</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1260561120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the title ought to be extended: <i>How to Build a Quantum Propulsion Machine <strong>for Fun and Profit</strong> </i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the title ought to be extended : How to Build a Quantum Propulsion Machine for Fun and Profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the title ought to be extended: How to Build a Quantum Propulsion Machine for Fun and Profit .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403420</id>
	<title>Re:what are we talking here?!</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1260553980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Er, "conservatin of momentum" forces the rocket backwards not "conservation of mass." I need to learn to use preview.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Er , " conservatin of momentum " forces the rocket backwards not " conservation of mass .
" I need to learn to use preview .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er, "conservatin of momentum" forces the rocket backwards not "conservation of mass.
" I need to learn to use preview.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404434</id>
	<title>Freeman Dyson meets James Dyson</title>
	<author>EvilSpudBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1260557640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At long last, the propulsion theories of Freeman Dyson and the vacuuming theories of James Dyson converge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At long last , the propulsion theories of Freeman Dyson and the vacuuming theories of James Dyson converge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At long last, the propulsion theories of Freeman Dyson and the vacuuming theories of James Dyson converge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403704</id>
	<title>Ian M Banks</title>
	<author>speedwaystar</author>
	<datestamp>1260554880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Space opera author Iain M Banks' spaceships (from his various Culture novels) are propelled by "traction fields" which engage with the "energy grid" (sic) underlying the universe. Banks readily admits that this is purest gibberish with no basis in any known science. Perhaps in light of this research he can backtrack and claim to have been describing a form of quantum propulsion all along?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Space opera author Iain M Banks ' spaceships ( from his various Culture novels ) are propelled by " traction fields " which engage with the " energy grid " ( sic ) underlying the universe .
Banks readily admits that this is purest gibberish with no basis in any known science .
Perhaps in light of this research he can backtrack and claim to have been describing a form of quantum propulsion all along ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space opera author Iain M Banks' spaceships (from his various Culture novels) are propelled by "traction fields" which engage with the "energy grid" (sic) underlying the universe.
Banks readily admits that this is purest gibberish with no basis in any known science.
Perhaps in light of this research he can backtrack and claim to have been describing a form of quantum propulsion all along?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403784</id>
	<title>Re:First Lesson in Relativity...</title>
	<author>hardie</author>
	<datestamp>1260555180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While energy is equivalent to mass, that does not imply mass conversion is the only source of energy.<br>Batteries do not lose mass as they discharge.</p><p>Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While energy is equivalent to mass , that does not imply mass conversion is the only source of energy.Batteries do not lose mass as they discharge.Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While energy is equivalent to mass, that does not imply mass conversion is the only source of energy.Batteries do not lose mass as they discharge.Steve</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403430</id>
	<title>Micro Version of an Old Experiment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260554040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There WAS the attempt to take advantage of the fact that buttered bread always lands butter-side down, and cats always land on their feet.</p><p>IIRC, it involved strapping a cat to a slab of buttered toast with the cat's feet on the butter. (Difficulty: obtaining catly cooperation). The early results were promising, with the cat hovering (and spinning) as the cat's feet and the buttered toast fought for landing position. When last heard from, the lab was attempting the same thing with a mountain lion, in the hopes of lifting or stabilizing significant amounts of weight and possibly obtaining propulsion effects by varying cat and bread sizes, with the goal of reaching low-earth-orbit without fuel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There WAS the attempt to take advantage of the fact that buttered bread always lands butter-side down , and cats always land on their feet.IIRC , it involved strapping a cat to a slab of buttered toast with the cat 's feet on the butter .
( Difficulty : obtaining catly cooperation ) .
The early results were promising , with the cat hovering ( and spinning ) as the cat 's feet and the buttered toast fought for landing position .
When last heard from , the lab was attempting the same thing with a mountain lion , in the hopes of lifting or stabilizing significant amounts of weight and possibly obtaining propulsion effects by varying cat and bread sizes , with the goal of reaching low-earth-orbit without fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There WAS the attempt to take advantage of the fact that buttered bread always lands butter-side down, and cats always land on their feet.IIRC, it involved strapping a cat to a slab of buttered toast with the cat's feet on the butter.
(Difficulty: obtaining catly cooperation).
The early results were promising, with the cat hovering (and spinning) as the cat's feet and the buttered toast fought for landing position.
When last heard from, the lab was attempting the same thing with a mountain lion, in the hopes of lifting or stabilizing significant amounts of weight and possibly obtaining propulsion effects by varying cat and bread sizes, with the goal of reaching low-earth-orbit without fuel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404242</id>
	<title>Re:ATTENTION</title>
	<author>Garridan</author>
	<datestamp>1260556860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just read up on "reactionless drives" and I don't agree.  If this works, it will be similar to the Dean drive.  From a naive point of view, it'll look like a reactionless drive.  But on closer inspection, work is being done on the magnetic fields in a vacuum -- just like the Dean drive does work on the surface it rests on via friction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just read up on " reactionless drives " and I do n't agree .
If this works , it will be similar to the Dean drive .
From a naive point of view , it 'll look like a reactionless drive .
But on closer inspection , work is being done on the magnetic fields in a vacuum -- just like the Dean drive does work on the surface it rests on via friction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just read up on "reactionless drives" and I don't agree.
If this works, it will be similar to the Dean drive.
From a naive point of view, it'll look like a reactionless drive.
But on closer inspection, work is being done on the magnetic fields in a vacuum -- just like the Dean drive does work on the surface it rests on via friction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405504</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1260562260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty, there's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship (or for that matter, a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.99c) on them.</i></p><p>A bunch of tungsten telephone poles in orbit is already a weapon deadly enough to extort the Earth -- maybe not by threatening the whole planet with annihilation by a relativistic kill vehicle, but I think threatening rich nations with the equivalent of nuclear bombardment would do the trick.  Things in orbit have a lot of potential and kinetic energy without needing fancy propulsion devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty , there 's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship ( or for that matter , a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at .99c ) on them.A bunch of tungsten telephone poles in orbit is already a weapon deadly enough to extort the Earth -- maybe not by threatening the whole planet with annihilation by a relativistic kill vehicle , but I think threatening rich nations with the equivalent of nuclear bombardment would do the trick .
Things in orbit have a lot of potential and kinetic energy without needing fancy propulsion devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty, there's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship (or for that matter, a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at .99c) on them.A bunch of tungsten telephone poles in orbit is already a weapon deadly enough to extort the Earth -- maybe not by threatening the whole planet with annihilation by a relativistic kill vehicle, but I think threatening rich nations with the equivalent of nuclear bombardment would do the trick.
Things in orbit have a lot of potential and kinetic energy without needing fancy propulsion devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403836</id>
	<title>ATTENTION</title>
	<author>feder</author>
	<datestamp>1260555420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THIS SOUNDS LIKE A REACTIONLESS DRIVE. NOW THAT I HAVE PROPERLY CATEGORIZED IT FOR YOU, YOU CAN JUST GO STRAIGHT ON TO BEING SKEPTICAL, SINCE EVERYONE KNOWS REACTIONLESS DRIVES ARE BALONY. THIS HAS BEEN A SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE STATUS QUO IN ENGINEERING. THANK YOU.</p><p>(We had to bribe Slashdot editors to let us write the above in all caps. They are total suckers for lower-case letters. It's a fetish of theirs, probably. Poor little letters. Cut to CmdrTaco doing a lower-case 'a' in the butt. Oh, ffs, will this filter ever let me through? rthwerg erg qergqegqerg qerg qegqegqreghqer gqer gq erg qer gqe gqergqergeqrgerg)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS SOUNDS LIKE A REACTIONLESS DRIVE .
NOW THAT I HAVE PROPERLY CATEGORIZED IT FOR YOU , YOU CAN JUST GO STRAIGHT ON TO BEING SKEPTICAL , SINCE EVERYONE KNOWS REACTIONLESS DRIVES ARE BALONY .
THIS HAS BEEN A SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE STATUS QUO IN ENGINEERING .
THANK YOU .
( We had to bribe Slashdot editors to let us write the above in all caps .
They are total suckers for lower-case letters .
It 's a fetish of theirs , probably .
Poor little letters .
Cut to CmdrTaco doing a lower-case 'a ' in the butt .
Oh , ffs , will this filter ever let me through ?
rthwerg erg qergqegqerg qerg qegqegqreghqer gqer gq erg qer gqe gqergqergeqrgerg )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THIS SOUNDS LIKE A REACTIONLESS DRIVE.
NOW THAT I HAVE PROPERLY CATEGORIZED IT FOR YOU, YOU CAN JUST GO STRAIGHT ON TO BEING SKEPTICAL, SINCE EVERYONE KNOWS REACTIONLESS DRIVES ARE BALONY.
THIS HAS BEEN A SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE STATUS QUO IN ENGINEERING.
THANK YOU.
(We had to bribe Slashdot editors to let us write the above in all caps.
They are total suckers for lower-case letters.
It's a fetish of theirs, probably.
Poor little letters.
Cut to CmdrTaco doing a lower-case 'a' in the butt.
Oh, ffs, will this filter ever let me through?
rthwerg erg qergqegqerg qerg qegqegqreghqer gqer gq erg qer gqe gqergqergeqrgerg)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684</id>
	<title>This can be done using nanoparticles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260551160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet this could be done even easier with cats, but the ASPCA people won't like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet this could be done even easier with cats , but the ASPCA people wo n't like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet this could be done even easier with cats, but the ASPCA people won't like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405186</id>
	<title>Re:Is this different from a photon drive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260560820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was my first thought when I read the summary as well. I wondered if this could be any better than simply shining a laser. It seems that if you are going to breaking the symmetry of virtual particle- anti-particle pairs, then you are going to be converting some of them into real particles. (Just as Hawking radiation is explained.) Without having read their theory, it seems most likely that this particles would be photons, but it would be interesting if you could get things like electrons and positrons to come out.</p><p>Actually, that is an interesting idea. Would it be possible that an addressable lattice of such nano-particles could be manipulated to emit such a particle as a muon? That might have an application in fusion power generators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was my first thought when I read the summary as well .
I wondered if this could be any better than simply shining a laser .
It seems that if you are going to breaking the symmetry of virtual particle- anti-particle pairs , then you are going to be converting some of them into real particles .
( Just as Hawking radiation is explained .
) Without having read their theory , it seems most likely that this particles would be photons , but it would be interesting if you could get things like electrons and positrons to come out.Actually , that is an interesting idea .
Would it be possible that an addressable lattice of such nano-particles could be manipulated to emit such a particle as a muon ?
That might have an application in fusion power generators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was my first thought when I read the summary as well.
I wondered if this could be any better than simply shining a laser.
It seems that if you are going to breaking the symmetry of virtual particle- anti-particle pairs, then you are going to be converting some of them into real particles.
(Just as Hawking radiation is explained.
) Without having read their theory, it seems most likely that this particles would be photons, but it would be interesting if you could get things like electrons and positrons to come out.Actually, that is an interesting idea.
Would it be possible that an addressable lattice of such nano-particles could be manipulated to emit such a particle as a muon?
That might have an application in fusion power generators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403724</id>
	<title>Re:Momentum Conservation</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1260555000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't sound different?  A rocket or an ion thruster or a theoretical fission of fusion or antimatter thruster works by shooting shit out the back at low-to-high speeds, making you shoot forwards.  In the air, you can use a big propeller / fan to push the air around you backwards at high speeds.  You use fuel up spinning those fans, but its way more efficient fuel wise than just squirting diesel out the back with a pump.  But of course, with no air to push around, you can't use a turbofan in space.  This newish idea is that you can push against the virtual particles in a vacuum using this or that technique, and essentially get a space propeller.  Will it get to 3000-9000 s specific impulse like the ion thrusters?  Maybe not.  But right now, all it has to do is beat 500 s from a rocket thruster, but still scale high enough to outdo an ion thruster, which, though highly efficient, is extremely large and produces an extremely tiny amount of thrust.  And maybe it'll only be useful until all those fancy fusion thrusters scientists are making up become a reality...but even then, a reactionless maneuvering thruster would be much safer for use in docking maneuvers, than say, plasma plumes shooting out at relativistic speeds?  Not as useful at fighting of a Kzin ambush though, so give and take I suppose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't sound different ?
A rocket or an ion thruster or a theoretical fission of fusion or antimatter thruster works by shooting shit out the back at low-to-high speeds , making you shoot forwards .
In the air , you can use a big propeller / fan to push the air around you backwards at high speeds .
You use fuel up spinning those fans , but its way more efficient fuel wise than just squirting diesel out the back with a pump .
But of course , with no air to push around , you ca n't use a turbofan in space .
This newish idea is that you can push against the virtual particles in a vacuum using this or that technique , and essentially get a space propeller .
Will it get to 3000-9000 s specific impulse like the ion thrusters ?
Maybe not .
But right now , all it has to do is beat 500 s from a rocket thruster , but still scale high enough to outdo an ion thruster , which , though highly efficient , is extremely large and produces an extremely tiny amount of thrust .
And maybe it 'll only be useful until all those fancy fusion thrusters scientists are making up become a reality...but even then , a reactionless maneuvering thruster would be much safer for use in docking maneuvers , than say , plasma plumes shooting out at relativistic speeds ?
Not as useful at fighting of a Kzin ambush though , so give and take I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't sound different?
A rocket or an ion thruster or a theoretical fission of fusion or antimatter thruster works by shooting shit out the back at low-to-high speeds, making you shoot forwards.
In the air, you can use a big propeller / fan to push the air around you backwards at high speeds.
You use fuel up spinning those fans, but its way more efficient fuel wise than just squirting diesel out the back with a pump.
But of course, with no air to push around, you can't use a turbofan in space.
This newish idea is that you can push against the virtual particles in a vacuum using this or that technique, and essentially get a space propeller.
Will it get to 3000-9000 s specific impulse like the ion thrusters?
Maybe not.
But right now, all it has to do is beat 500 s from a rocket thruster, but still scale high enough to outdo an ion thruster, which, though highly efficient, is extremely large and produces an extremely tiny amount of thrust.
And maybe it'll only be useful until all those fancy fusion thrusters scientists are making up become a reality...but even then, a reactionless maneuvering thruster would be much safer for use in docking maneuvers, than say, plasma plumes shooting out at relativistic speeds?
Not as useful at fighting of a Kzin ambush though, so give and take I suppose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403632</id>
	<title>Bad Ass!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260554640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's do this shit. I'm ready for awesome intergalactic adventures. extrogalactic as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's do this shit .
I 'm ready for awesome intergalactic adventures .
extrogalactic as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's do this shit.
I'm ready for awesome intergalactic adventures.
extrogalactic as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30408414</id>
	<title>Article assumes external field</title>
	<author>IIsi</author>
	<datestamp>1260534180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm only an aspiring physicist, but it seems like the arxiv article assumes an external magnetic field. This could explain why the author only mentions altitude change in satellites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm only an aspiring physicist , but it seems like the arxiv article assumes an external magnetic field .
This could explain why the author only mentions altitude change in satellites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm only an aspiring physicist, but it seems like the arxiv article assumes an external magnetic field.
This could explain why the author only mentions altitude change in satellites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403220</id>
	<title>there is a change in mass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260553140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this propels you, you get closer to the speed of light; as you approach that speed, you gain mass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this propels you , you get closer to the speed of light ; as you approach that speed , you gain mass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this propels you, you get closer to the speed of light; as you approach that speed, you gain mass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30411416</id>
	<title>Re:Reversible?</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1260557220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless I'm misunderstanding, the quantum wheel is just an efficient photon drive. That is, normal use results in excited vacuum states (photons) carrying momentum in the opposite direction as the spacecraft. So the reverse process would be like a solar sail that absorbs photons and spins magneto-electric nanoparticles. This seems like it would require an incoming stream of photons.</p><p>What you're describing sounds like two (or more) of these quantum wheels placed against each other, coupled to an accelerometer. Whenever the object begins to accelerate in a particular direction, the quantum wheel in that direction starts emitting photons to counteract the acceleration as much as possible. That would result in an object with enhanced inertia, but it would require an insane amount of power (300MW) to resist a force of 1 N.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless I 'm misunderstanding , the quantum wheel is just an efficient photon drive .
That is , normal use results in excited vacuum states ( photons ) carrying momentum in the opposite direction as the spacecraft .
So the reverse process would be like a solar sail that absorbs photons and spins magneto-electric nanoparticles .
This seems like it would require an incoming stream of photons.What you 're describing sounds like two ( or more ) of these quantum wheels placed against each other , coupled to an accelerometer .
Whenever the object begins to accelerate in a particular direction , the quantum wheel in that direction starts emitting photons to counteract the acceleration as much as possible .
That would result in an object with enhanced inertia , but it would require an insane amount of power ( 300MW ) to resist a force of 1 N .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless I'm misunderstanding, the quantum wheel is just an efficient photon drive.
That is, normal use results in excited vacuum states (photons) carrying momentum in the opposite direction as the spacecraft.
So the reverse process would be like a solar sail that absorbs photons and spins magneto-electric nanoparticles.
This seems like it would require an incoming stream of photons.What you're describing sounds like two (or more) of these quantum wheels placed against each other, coupled to an accelerometer.
Whenever the object begins to accelerate in a particular direction, the quantum wheel in that direction starts emitting photons to counteract the acceleration as much as possible.
That would result in an object with enhanced inertia, but it would require an insane amount of power (300MW) to resist a force of 1 N.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402726</id>
	<title>So , , ,</title>
	<author>DinDaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1260551400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vacuum doesn't suck, it pushes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vacuum does n't suck , it pushes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vacuum doesn't suck, it pushes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403946</id>
	<title>We already have Propellantless Propulsion...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260555840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called the Biefeld&ndash;Brown effect. And it does work in a vacuum, but based on experimental evidence the dielectric between the capacitor plates needs to be a solid, not a gas (e.g., air) for it to work. All the technology needs now is the proper funding and rockets can be replaced along with other forms of transportation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called the Biefeld    Brown effect .
And it does work in a vacuum , but based on experimental evidence the dielectric between the capacitor plates needs to be a solid , not a gas ( e.g. , air ) for it to work .
All the technology needs now is the proper funding and rockets can be replaced along with other forms of transportation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called the Biefeld–Brown effect.
And it does work in a vacuum, but based on experimental evidence the dielectric between the capacitor plates needs to be a solid, not a gas (e.g., air) for it to work.
All the technology needs now is the proper funding and rockets can be replaced along with other forms of transportation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405100</id>
	<title>Re:what are we talking here?!</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1260560520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The key idea at some level is that you don't need to lose fuel to accelerate (you just lose energy).</p></div><p>This is what i don't understand.  Energy in fuel is stored in a chemical, until it is converted.  If you lose energy, which is transformed by a chemical, won't you lose the chemical?  In other words lose the fuel?  Going by your idea, if you lose energy, but not the mass - does that leave us with some kind of waste material (which is basically what things like exhaust fumes from a car)?  What happens to the substance? Is it reusable so your one gallon of gas is an infinite gallon of gas?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The key idea at some level is that you do n't need to lose fuel to accelerate ( you just lose energy ) .This is what i do n't understand .
Energy in fuel is stored in a chemical , until it is converted .
If you lose energy , which is transformed by a chemical , wo n't you lose the chemical ?
In other words lose the fuel ?
Going by your idea , if you lose energy , but not the mass - does that leave us with some kind of waste material ( which is basically what things like exhaust fumes from a car ) ?
What happens to the substance ?
Is it reusable so your one gallon of gas is an infinite gallon of gas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key idea at some level is that you don't need to lose fuel to accelerate (you just lose energy).This is what i don't understand.
Energy in fuel is stored in a chemical, until it is converted.
If you lose energy, which is transformed by a chemical, won't you lose the chemical?
In other words lose the fuel?
Going by your idea, if you lose energy, but not the mass - does that leave us with some kind of waste material (which is basically what things like exhaust fumes from a car)?
What happens to the substance?
Is it reusable so your one gallon of gas is an infinite gallon of gas?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404620</id>
	<title>Re:This can be done using nanoparticles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260558600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well sure if we have the cats locked in a room with a bridge extending or part of it (with no floor underneath), we simply need to open the bridge at an interval to drop the cats into the magma below. The faster the interval, the more thrust generated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well sure if we have the cats locked in a room with a bridge extending or part of it ( with no floor underneath ) , we simply need to open the bridge at an interval to drop the cats into the magma below .
The faster the interval , the more thrust generated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well sure if we have the cats locked in a room with a bridge extending or part of it (with no floor underneath), we simply need to open the bridge at an interval to drop the cats into the magma below.
The faster the interval, the more thrust generated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403230</id>
	<title>First Lesson in Relativity...</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1260553200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Although the proposed engine will consume energy for manipulation of the particles, the propulsion will occur without any loss of mass," says Feigel.</p></div><p>
I'd like to see how that works. The one thing that even non-physicists know is that energy is equivalent to mass (E=mc2). This applies to all power. However the mass loss of a battery which discharges is negligible compared to the total mass hence it is usually neglected for energies below nuclear. Unless they can show otherwise my very strong suspicion is that they energy needed to manipulate the nano-particles will be identical to the energy needed to emit a photon of the same momentum. Until they can show this I do not see anything to be excited about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Although the proposed engine will consume energy for manipulation of the particles , the propulsion will occur without any loss of mass , " says Feigel .
I 'd like to see how that works .
The one thing that even non-physicists know is that energy is equivalent to mass ( E = mc2 ) .
This applies to all power .
However the mass loss of a battery which discharges is negligible compared to the total mass hence it is usually neglected for energies below nuclear .
Unless they can show otherwise my very strong suspicion is that they energy needed to manipulate the nano-particles will be identical to the energy needed to emit a photon of the same momentum .
Until they can show this I do not see anything to be excited about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Although the proposed engine will consume energy for manipulation of the particles, the propulsion will occur without any loss of mass," says Feigel.
I'd like to see how that works.
The one thing that even non-physicists know is that energy is equivalent to mass (E=mc2).
This applies to all power.
However the mass loss of a battery which discharges is negligible compared to the total mass hence it is usually neglected for energies below nuclear.
Unless they can show otherwise my very strong suspicion is that they energy needed to manipulate the nano-particles will be identical to the energy needed to emit a photon of the same momentum.
Until they can show this I do not see anything to be excited about.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403336</id>
	<title>On earth it's called Magnetohydrodynamic drive</title>
	<author>DevConcepts</author>
	<datestamp>1260553680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic\_drive" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic\_drive</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic \ _drive [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic\_drive [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405738</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1260563400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aether didn't ever go anywhere.</p><p>Einstein is supposed to have killed it, but all he did was rename it "the fabric of spacetime," which was later refined to be "the gravitational field."  Modern quantum field theory suggests that we are always immersed in a dozen or so fields.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aether did n't ever go anywhere.Einstein is supposed to have killed it , but all he did was rename it " the fabric of spacetime , " which was later refined to be " the gravitational field .
" Modern quantum field theory suggests that we are always immersed in a dozen or so fields .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aether didn't ever go anywhere.Einstein is supposed to have killed it, but all he did was rename it "the fabric of spacetime," which was later refined to be "the gravitational field.
"  Modern quantum field theory suggests that we are always immersed in a dozen or so fields.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402986</id>
	<title>Implications?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" it generates propulsion without any change in mass. As the research puts it with magesterial understatement, this might have practical implications"</p><p>Ok, I'll bite:  someone want to tell me what those implications are?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" it generates propulsion without any change in mass .
As the research puts it with magesterial understatement , this might have practical implications " Ok , I 'll bite : someone want to tell me what those implications are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" it generates propulsion without any change in mass.
As the research puts it with magesterial understatement, this might have practical implications"Ok, I'll bite:  someone want to tell me what those implications are?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742</id>
	<title>Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260551460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>doesn't the introduction of particles make it NOT a vacuum?</htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't the introduction of particles make it NOT a vacuum ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't the introduction of particles make it NOT a vacuum?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402996</id>
	<title>Re:This can be done using nanoparticles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>can this thing send knee grows back to AFRICA?</htmltext>
<tokenext>can this thing send knee grows back to AFRICA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can this thing send knee grows back to AFRICA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404914</id>
	<title>QED</title>
	<author>Mr. Flibble</author>
	<datestamp>1260559800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The existence of particles in a vacuum? That sounds exactly like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous\_aether" title="wikipedia.org">aether, a scientific theory that was abandoned about 200 years ago!</a> [wikipedia.org]</p> </div><p>I suggest you read this book: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED:\_The\_Strange\_Theory\_of\_Light\_and\_Matter" title="wikipedia.org">QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>As the author of the introduction, Zee notes: "According to Feynman, to learn QED you have two choices: you can go through seven years of physics education or read this book"</p><p>This is the best book there is that I know of that will give you the grounding to get Quantum Electrodynamics. You will discover that particles do in fact, exist in a vacuum. The quantum world does not work anything like the macro world that we are used to. You have to get used to ideas like electrons traveling back in time and emitting a photon before they actually received a photon that caused them to emit said photon.</p><p>If you don't want to read that, then at the very least, read this: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum\_energy" title="wikipedia.org">Vacuum Energy</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The existence of particles in a vacuum ?
That sounds exactly like the aether , a scientific theory that was abandoned about 200 years ago !
[ wikipedia.org ] I suggest you read this book : QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter [ wikipedia.org ] As the author of the introduction , Zee notes : " According to Feynman , to learn QED you have two choices : you can go through seven years of physics education or read this book " This is the best book there is that I know of that will give you the grounding to get Quantum Electrodynamics .
You will discover that particles do in fact , exist in a vacuum .
The quantum world does not work anything like the macro world that we are used to .
You have to get used to ideas like electrons traveling back in time and emitting a photon before they actually received a photon that caused them to emit said photon.If you do n't want to read that , then at the very least , read this : Vacuum Energy [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The existence of particles in a vacuum?
That sounds exactly like the aether, a scientific theory that was abandoned about 200 years ago!
[wikipedia.org] I suggest you read this book: QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter [wikipedia.org]As the author of the introduction, Zee notes: "According to Feynman, to learn QED you have two choices: you can go through seven years of physics education or read this book"This is the best book there is that I know of that will give you the grounding to get Quantum Electrodynamics.
You will discover that particles do in fact, exist in a vacuum.
The quantum world does not work anything like the macro world that we are used to.
You have to get used to ideas like electrons traveling back in time and emitting a photon before they actually received a photon that caused them to emit said photon.If you don't want to read that, then at the very least, read this: Vacuum Energy [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403090</id>
	<title>Re:Momentum Conservation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are simply converting potential electrical energy into real kinetic energy that is vectored in one direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are simply converting potential electrical energy into real kinetic energy that is vectored in one direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are simply converting potential electrical energy into real kinetic energy that is vectored in one direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404062</id>
	<title>Feigel's had this bee in his bonnet for years.</title>
	<author>rpresser</author>
	<datestamp>1260556260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See this <a href="http://users.erols.com/iri/EnewsMarch17,2004.htm" title="erols.com">item from 2004:</a> [erols.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>He started with the fact that electrical and magnetic forces between objects are mediated by photons that flit between them. So an object placed in strong electric and magnetic fields can be considered to be immersed in a sea of these transitory, virtual photons.</p><p>Feigel then showed that the momentum of the virtual photons that pop up inside a vacuum can depend upon the direction in which they are travelling. He concludes that if the electric field points up and the magnetic field points north, for example, then east-heading photons will have a different momentum from west-heading photons.</p><p>So the vacuum acquires a net momentum in one direction &mdash; it&rsquo;s as though the empty space is &lsquo;moving&rsquo; in that direction, even though it is empty.</p><p>It is a general principle of physics that momentum is &lsquo;conserved&rsquo; &mdash; if something moves one way, another thing must move the other way, as a gun recoils when it shoots a bullet. So when the vacuum acquires some momentum from these virtual photons, the object placed within it itself starts to move in the opposite direction.</p><p>Feigel estimates that in an electric field of 100,000 volts per metre and a magnetic field of 17 tesla &mdash; both big values, but attainable with current technology &mdash; an object as dense as water would move at around 18 centimetres per hour.</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>See this item from 2004 : [ erols.com ] He started with the fact that electrical and magnetic forces between objects are mediated by photons that flit between them .
So an object placed in strong electric and magnetic fields can be considered to be immersed in a sea of these transitory , virtual photons.Feigel then showed that the momentum of the virtual photons that pop up inside a vacuum can depend upon the direction in which they are travelling .
He concludes that if the electric field points up and the magnetic field points north , for example , then east-heading photons will have a different momentum from west-heading photons.So the vacuum acquires a net momentum in one direction    it    s as though the empty space is    moving    in that direction , even though it is empty.It is a general principle of physics that momentum is    conserved       if something moves one way , another thing must move the other way , as a gun recoils when it shoots a bullet .
So when the vacuum acquires some momentum from these virtual photons , the object placed within it itself starts to move in the opposite direction.Feigel estimates that in an electric field of 100,000 volts per metre and a magnetic field of 17 tesla    both big values , but attainable with current technology    an object as dense as water would move at around 18 centimetres per hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See this item from 2004: [erols.com] He started with the fact that electrical and magnetic forces between objects are mediated by photons that flit between them.
So an object placed in strong electric and magnetic fields can be considered to be immersed in a sea of these transitory, virtual photons.Feigel then showed that the momentum of the virtual photons that pop up inside a vacuum can depend upon the direction in which they are travelling.
He concludes that if the electric field points up and the magnetic field points north, for example, then east-heading photons will have a different momentum from west-heading photons.So the vacuum acquires a net momentum in one direction — it’s as though the empty space is ‘moving’ in that direction, even though it is empty.It is a general principle of physics that momentum is ‘conserved’ — if something moves one way, another thing must move the other way, as a gun recoils when it shoots a bullet.
So when the vacuum acquires some momentum from these virtual photons, the object placed within it itself starts to move in the opposite direction.Feigel estimates that in an electric field of 100,000 volts per metre and a magnetic field of 17 tesla — both big values, but attainable with current technology — an object as dense as water would move at around 18 centimetres per hour. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403694</id>
	<title>Re:Is this different from a photon drive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260554880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Red this short article about "vacuum propellers" (props to RedJesus for finding the article):</p><p><a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/vprop/" title="fourmilab.ch">http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/vprop/</a> [fourmilab.ch]</p><p>You don't have to "emit" anything, you just set up magnetic fields to push against the "vacuum" of space, which is not at all a true, classical vacuum (it contains little fields all over the place).  It's like the ocean, a force that can be interacted with.  A "working fluid".</p><p>And since we're talking electromagnetism, a really strong force in the grand scheme of things, maybe this will be a lot of energy efficient that simply throwing almost-massless particles out your rear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Red this short article about " vacuum propellers " ( props to RedJesus for finding the article ) : http : //www.fourmilab.ch/documents/vprop/ [ fourmilab.ch ] You do n't have to " emit " anything , you just set up magnetic fields to push against the " vacuum " of space , which is not at all a true , classical vacuum ( it contains little fields all over the place ) .
It 's like the ocean , a force that can be interacted with .
A " working fluid " .And since we 're talking electromagnetism , a really strong force in the grand scheme of things , maybe this will be a lot of energy efficient that simply throwing almost-massless particles out your rear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Red this short article about "vacuum propellers" (props to RedJesus for finding the article):http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/vprop/ [fourmilab.ch]You don't have to "emit" anything, you just set up magnetic fields to push against the "vacuum" of space, which is not at all a true, classical vacuum (it contains little fields all over the place).
It's like the ocean, a force that can be interacted with.
A "working fluid".And since we're talking electromagnetism, a really strong force in the grand scheme of things, maybe this will be a lot of energy efficient that simply throwing almost-massless particles out your rear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403120</id>
	<title>Re:Momentum Conservation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh WTF retard flagged the parent as "offtopic"? That's a completely valid point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh WTF retard flagged the parent as " offtopic " ?
That 's a completely valid point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh WTF retard flagged the parent as "offtopic"?
That's a completely valid point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403980</id>
	<title>Re:Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>brian0918</author>
	<datestamp>1260556020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God bless the Baby Jesus and His matter-creating activities!</htmltext>
<tokenext>God bless the Baby Jesus and His matter-creating activities !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God bless the Baby Jesus and His matter-creating activities!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404172</id>
	<title>Uses energy but not mass?</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1260556680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Although such a machine will need a source of energy, it generates propulsion without any change in mass.</p></div><p>I thought e=mc2, or did I miss a memo somewhere?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although such a machine will need a source of energy , it generates propulsion without any change in mass.I thought e = mc2 , or did I miss a memo somewhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although such a machine will need a source of energy, it generates propulsion without any change in mass.I thought e=mc2, or did I miss a memo somewhere?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404104</id>
	<title>Re:First Lesson in Relativity...</title>
	<author>tylersoze</author>
	<datestamp>1260556440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes they do, E/c^2, or p/c if we're talking flashlight rockets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes they do , E/c ^ 2 , or p/c if we 're talking flashlight rockets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes they do, E/c^2, or p/c if we're talking flashlight rockets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402934</id>
	<title>Is this different from a photon drive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is dumping momentum into the quantum vacuum different from emitting photons carrying the same momentum? If not, this is just a photon drive, which is a well known concept, has brilliant specific impulse but is incredibly energy-inefficient except at high relatavistic velocities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is dumping momentum into the quantum vacuum different from emitting photons carrying the same momentum ?
If not , this is just a photon drive , which is a well known concept , has brilliant specific impulse but is incredibly energy-inefficient except at high relatavistic velocities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is dumping momentum into the quantum vacuum different from emitting photons carrying the same momentum?
If not, this is just a photon drive, which is a well known concept, has brilliant specific impulse but is incredibly energy-inefficient except at high relatavistic velocities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403466</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260554100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uuum, wouldn&rsquo;t it be more like a machine that constantly digs up some soil, and throws it behind itself, to accelerate?</p><p>Of course, here the &ldquo;soil&rdquo; constantly digs itself up. But you&rsquo;re still &ldquo;taking that &ldquo;stuff&rdquo;, and throwing it behind yourself. It just happens to zero itself out after this, if I understand it correctly.</p><p>I would bet money, that we will get some very interesting effects and new science out of even trying this.<br>Like finding out why it does not work. Or why/how the symmetry is not violated because of something weird.</p><p>But why do you have to think of weapons? What you said could be said about nukes too. But it did not change much, because 1. Others will have that weapon too, and 2. To what planet will you go back after destroying it? You know... To <em>breathe</em>! ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uuum , wouldn    t it be more like a machine that constantly digs up some soil , and throws it behind itself , to accelerate ? Of course , here the    soil    constantly digs itself up .
But you    re still    taking that    stuff    , and throwing it behind yourself .
It just happens to zero itself out after this , if I understand it correctly.I would bet money , that we will get some very interesting effects and new science out of even trying this.Like finding out why it does not work .
Or why/how the symmetry is not violated because of something weird.But why do you have to think of weapons ?
What you said could be said about nukes too .
But it did not change much , because 1 .
Others will have that weapon too , and 2 .
To what planet will you go back after destroying it ?
You know... To breathe !
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uuum, wouldn’t it be more like a machine that constantly digs up some soil, and throws it behind itself, to accelerate?Of course, here the “soil” constantly digs itself up.
But you’re still “taking that “stuff”, and throwing it behind yourself.
It just happens to zero itself out after this, if I understand it correctly.I would bet money, that we will get some very interesting effects and new science out of even trying this.Like finding out why it does not work.
Or why/how the symmetry is not violated because of something weird.But why do you have to think of weapons?
What you said could be said about nukes too.
But it did not change much, because 1.
Others will have that weapon too, and 2.
To what planet will you go back after destroying it?
You know... To breathe!
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407780</id>
	<title>the usual e=mc^2 formula applies here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260530520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  If the device uses internal energy, this will reduce its mass.  It could just use photon's propulsion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the device uses internal energy , this will reduce its mass .
It could just use photon 's propulsion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  If the device uses internal energy, this will reduce its mass.
It could just use photon's propulsion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405514</id>
	<title>One problem</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1260562320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With quantum propulsion is that you can never know both which direction you are travelling and how fast you are going.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With quantum propulsion is that you can never know both which direction you are travelling and how fast you are going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With quantum propulsion is that you can never know both which direction you are travelling and how fast you are going.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406020</id>
	<title>Re:Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>SoVeryTired</author>
	<datestamp>1260564960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's correct. This is effectly a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (IANAP). If you knew there was nothing in the vacuum, you'd know its state precisely, which is forbidden by Heisenberg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's correct .
This is effectly a consequence of Heisenberg 's uncertainty principle ( IANAP ) .
If you knew there was nothing in the vacuum , you 'd know its state precisely , which is forbidden by Heisenberg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's correct.
This is effectly a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (IANAP).
If you knew there was nothing in the vacuum, you'd know its state precisely, which is forbidden by Heisenberg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405606</id>
	<title>bye then</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1260562800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Goodbye wankers,<br>
<br>Maybe you think you aren't a wanker, but the sad fact is, you are !<br> <br>I've been here nearly 10 years and all you've done as a group is descend into wankerdom. So fuck you, you deserve the world you're helping to create. If only I could go somewhere else instead.... (planetary speaking)<br> <br>PS you can help the cause... add this site to your hosts file at 127.* and never visit again. Just by posting you are giving this place legitimacy. Sad fucks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Goodbye wankers , Maybe you think you are n't a wanker , but the sad fact is , you are !
I 've been here nearly 10 years and all you 've done as a group is descend into wankerdom .
So fuck you , you deserve the world you 're helping to create .
If only I could go somewhere else instead.... ( planetary speaking ) PS you can help the cause... add this site to your hosts file at 127 .
* and never visit again .
Just by posting you are giving this place legitimacy .
Sad fucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goodbye wankers,
Maybe you think you aren't a wanker, but the sad fact is, you are !
I've been here nearly 10 years and all you've done as a group is descend into wankerdom.
So fuck you, you deserve the world you're helping to create.
If only I could go somewhere else instead.... (planetary speaking) PS you can help the cause... add this site to your hosts file at 127.
* and never visit again.
Just by posting you are giving this place legitimacy.
Sad fucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404128</id>
	<title>Reversible?</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1260556500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an interesting question:

</p><p>Assuming this works, could the process be made reversible?

</p><p>This would result in a device that resists momentum change, instead absorbing kinetic energy and using it to rotate the nanoparticles (and I assume dumping the energy out as heat).

</p><p>This would be really useful for a lot of purposes. Spaceflight, naturally (<i>anything</i> that lets you play with momentum is useful in spaceflight); it gives you a brake that would cause your spacecraft to resist acceleration, which would be very useful for satellite stationkeeping. Around planets the devices would fall slowly; you might be able to use one as a parachute. You could install one on the tops of tall buildings to make them resist swaying in the wind. An aircraft with one installed would behave really oddly (possibly usefully). The possibilities are endless...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an interesting question : Assuming this works , could the process be made reversible ?
This would result in a device that resists momentum change , instead absorbing kinetic energy and using it to rotate the nanoparticles ( and I assume dumping the energy out as heat ) .
This would be really useful for a lot of purposes .
Spaceflight , naturally ( anything that lets you play with momentum is useful in spaceflight ) ; it gives you a brake that would cause your spacecraft to resist acceleration , which would be very useful for satellite stationkeeping .
Around planets the devices would fall slowly ; you might be able to use one as a parachute .
You could install one on the tops of tall buildings to make them resist swaying in the wind .
An aircraft with one installed would behave really oddly ( possibly usefully ) .
The possibilities are endless.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an interesting question:

Assuming this works, could the process be made reversible?
This would result in a device that resists momentum change, instead absorbing kinetic energy and using it to rotate the nanoparticles (and I assume dumping the energy out as heat).
This would be really useful for a lot of purposes.
Spaceflight, naturally (anything that lets you play with momentum is useful in spaceflight); it gives you a brake that would cause your spacecraft to resist acceleration, which would be very useful for satellite stationkeeping.
Around planets the devices would fall slowly; you might be able to use one as a parachute.
You could install one on the tops of tall buildings to make them resist swaying in the wind.
An aircraft with one installed would behave really oddly (possibly usefully).
The possibilities are endless...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30409056</id>
	<title>Re:Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260538080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like cold fusion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like cold fusion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like cold fusion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403384</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1260553860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless we use the Earth AS our ship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless we use the Earth AS our ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless we use the Earth AS our ship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405080</id>
	<title>Re:Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>mrogers</author>
	<datestamp>1260560460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It turns out that there is no such thing as a classical vacuum.</i>
<p>
So... you're saying that nothing's impossible? Or just that we ain't seen nothing yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It turns out that there is no such thing as a classical vacuum .
So... you 're saying that nothing 's impossible ?
Or just that we ai n't seen nothing yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It turns out that there is no such thing as a classical vacuum.
So... you're saying that nothing's impossible?
Or just that we ain't seen nothing yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406044</id>
	<title>The mass-loss-less propulsion system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260565080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a mouthful. What's it going to be called by the space sailors? That's the real challenge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a mouthful .
What 's it going to be called by the space sailors ?
That 's the real challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a mouthful.
What's it going to be called by the space sailors?
That's the real challenge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402878</id>
	<title>Re:Momentum Conservation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ianap but...</p><p>as they're not venting anything to "push" against these "particles" they maintain a constant mass which is where i believe it relates to momentum conservation... i think you're using the casimir effect as a red herring... with a fricking "laser" on it's head (sorry couldn't resist after the first use of double quotes)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ianap but...as they 're not venting anything to " push " against these " particles " they maintain a constant mass which is where i believe it relates to momentum conservation... i think you 're using the casimir effect as a red herring... with a fricking " laser " on it 's head ( sorry could n't resist after the first use of double quotes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ianap but...as they're not venting anything to "push" against these "particles" they maintain a constant mass which is where i believe it relates to momentum conservation... i think you're using the casimir effect as a red herring... with a fricking "laser" on it's head (sorry couldn't resist after the first use of double quotes)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404966</id>
	<title>Color me cynical</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1260559980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I see the *promises* of many sci-fi things, like the other story about regrowing nerves. Problem is that there's amazing medicine and science that have been promised over the 44 years of my life that I haven't see boo about since the announcements. Where's my two hour New York-Tokyo flight? Where's my replacement organs being grown inside of a cow? They were talking about regrowing limbs and in the 70s. Where's the line of nuclear desalination plants providing California with energy and fresh water? Solar power sats have been on the table since the late 60s. A.I. and fusion and all those other things are just around the corner- in perpetuity.</p><p>GM food + cell phone with a processor + robot with gun bolted to it != HAL9000 with an FTL drive</p><p>Cripes, even if we keep our aim low- 15 years ago there was an announcement of super realistic voice synthesis, but most computers still sound like Twiki from Buck Rogers. Bede bede bede bede, the real future sucks donkey balls, Buck!</p><p>The fricken Asmio robots even look a little like that fasrtsucking Twiki bitch bot grr argh! That's no hookerbot like in the movie A.I.</p><p>Where's my quantum dust based PS9, dammit? Well, OK, that was Sony getting high on its own spume in a TV ad... never mind. Something like that would probably fry your brain, but, hey, just get a fresh one from the cow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I see the * promises * of many sci-fi things , like the other story about regrowing nerves .
Problem is that there 's amazing medicine and science that have been promised over the 44 years of my life that I have n't see boo about since the announcements .
Where 's my two hour New York-Tokyo flight ?
Where 's my replacement organs being grown inside of a cow ?
They were talking about regrowing limbs and in the 70s .
Where 's the line of nuclear desalination plants providing California with energy and fresh water ?
Solar power sats have been on the table since the late 60s .
A.I. and fusion and all those other things are just around the corner- in perpetuity.GM food + cell phone with a processor + robot with gun bolted to it ! = HAL9000 with an FTL driveCripes , even if we keep our aim low- 15 years ago there was an announcement of super realistic voice synthesis , but most computers still sound like Twiki from Buck Rogers .
Bede bede bede bede , the real future sucks donkey balls , Buck ! The fricken Asmio robots even look a little like that fasrtsucking Twiki bitch bot grr argh !
That 's no hookerbot like in the movie A.I.Where 's my quantum dust based PS9 , dammit ?
Well , OK , that was Sony getting high on its own spume in a TV ad... never mind .
Something like that would probably fry your brain , but , hey , just get a fresh one from the cow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I see the *promises* of many sci-fi things, like the other story about regrowing nerves.
Problem is that there's amazing medicine and science that have been promised over the 44 years of my life that I haven't see boo about since the announcements.
Where's my two hour New York-Tokyo flight?
Where's my replacement organs being grown inside of a cow?
They were talking about regrowing limbs and in the 70s.
Where's the line of nuclear desalination plants providing California with energy and fresh water?
Solar power sats have been on the table since the late 60s.
A.I. and fusion and all those other things are just around the corner- in perpetuity.GM food + cell phone with a processor + robot with gun bolted to it != HAL9000 with an FTL driveCripes, even if we keep our aim low- 15 years ago there was an announcement of super realistic voice synthesis, but most computers still sound like Twiki from Buck Rogers.
Bede bede bede bede, the real future sucks donkey balls, Buck!The fricken Asmio robots even look a little like that fasrtsucking Twiki bitch bot grr argh!
That's no hookerbot like in the movie A.I.Where's my quantum dust based PS9, dammit?
Well, OK, that was Sony getting high on its own spume in a TV ad... never mind.
Something like that would probably fry your brain, but, hey, just get a fresh one from the cow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403642</id>
	<title>Doesn't sound exciting at all...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1260554700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Although such a machine will need a source of energy, it generates propulsion without any change in mass. As the research puts it with magesterial understatement, this might have practical implications."</p> </div><p>My Engine does not change it's mass when it turns the crank shaft. It simply alters the mass of my fuel source. This propulsion system will still require a source of energy. Until we learn how to create energy without a change in mass - this engine is about the same as any other engine. Personally, I don't trust anything with "Quantum" in the name to function anymore then my decade old Car engine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although such a machine will need a source of energy , it generates propulsion without any change in mass .
As the research puts it with magesterial understatement , this might have practical implications .
" My Engine does not change it 's mass when it turns the crank shaft .
It simply alters the mass of my fuel source .
This propulsion system will still require a source of energy .
Until we learn how to create energy without a change in mass - this engine is about the same as any other engine .
Personally , I do n't trust anything with " Quantum " in the name to function anymore then my decade old Car engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although such a machine will need a source of energy, it generates propulsion without any change in mass.
As the research puts it with magesterial understatement, this might have practical implications.
" My Engine does not change it's mass when it turns the crank shaft.
It simply alters the mass of my fuel source.
This propulsion system will still require a source of energy.
Until we learn how to create energy without a change in mass - this engine is about the same as any other engine.
Personally, I don't trust anything with "Quantum" in the name to function anymore then my decade old Car engine.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404780</id>
	<title>The term is "Reactionless"</title>
	<author>StCredZero</author>
	<datestamp>1260559260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It just gave a slight air of plausibility to a few million bad SF novels.</p></div><p>Lots of good SF as well.  In Larry Niven's "Known Space" continuity those things were called "Thrusters."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It just gave a slight air of plausibility to a few million bad SF novels.Lots of good SF as well .
In Larry Niven 's " Known Space " continuity those things were called " Thrusters .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just gave a slight air of plausibility to a few million bad SF novels.Lots of good SF as well.
In Larry Niven's "Known Space" continuity those things were called "Thrusters.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407216</id>
	<title>Re:Why did noone tell me it was the future?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260527220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wait until we regrow the hobbits....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wait until we regrow the hobbits... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wait until we regrow the hobbits....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405988</id>
	<title>Re:ATTENTION</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260564660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You spelled boloney wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You spelled boloney wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You spelled boloney wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404630</id>
	<title>Back to the Future Hoverboard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260558600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so, will I have one of these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsgIzU51Mr0 ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so , will I have one of these : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = vsgIzU51Mr0 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so, will I have one of these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsgIzU51Mr0 ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404870</id>
	<title>Quantum diode sail possible?</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1260559620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking yesterday (unusual, but it happens) that if you had a 10 by 10 kilometer plate of some material that acted on the kasimir force like a diode does to electrons, that you might get unidirectional force from vacuum energy. Not a lot, but over a decade, it would add up. You'd essentially have a quantum "sail."</p><p>Possible? Or do I just need more coffee?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking yesterday ( unusual , but it happens ) that if you had a 10 by 10 kilometer plate of some material that acted on the kasimir force like a diode does to electrons , that you might get unidirectional force from vacuum energy .
Not a lot , but over a decade , it would add up .
You 'd essentially have a quantum " sail. " Possible ?
Or do I just need more coffee ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking yesterday (unusual, but it happens) that if you had a 10 by 10 kilometer plate of some material that acted on the kasimir force like a diode does to electrons, that you might get unidirectional force from vacuum energy.
Not a lot, but over a decade, it would add up.
You'd essentially have a quantum "sail."Possible?
Or do I just need more coffee?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404828</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>stumblingmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1260559500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any propulsion system can be used as a weapon.</p></div><p>Case in point. The only thing more powerful than the Wave Motion Cannon is the Wave Motion Engine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any propulsion system can be used as a weapon.Case in point .
The only thing more powerful than the Wave Motion Cannon is the Wave Motion Engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any propulsion system can be used as a weapon.Case in point.
The only thing more powerful than the Wave Motion Cannon is the Wave Motion Engine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405144</id>
	<title>Re:This can be done using nanoparticles</title>
	<author>Lord Pillage</author>
	<datestamp>1260560700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have your cat spayed or neutroned?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have your cat spayed or neutroned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have your cat spayed or neutroned?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403422</id>
	<title>Conservation of M/E?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1260553980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"According to quantum mechanics, a vacuum will be filled with electromagnetic waves leaping in and out of existence."</p><p>I'm confused. . . does this violate the law of the Conservation of Matter &amp; Energy? Can this effect be exploited to harness 'free' energy? After all, electromagnetic waves are energy, are they not? Sure, propulsion that doesn't require you to throw stuff out the back door sounds interesting, but free energy sounds even more interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" According to quantum mechanics , a vacuum will be filled with electromagnetic waves leaping in and out of existence .
" I 'm confused .
. .
does this violate the law of the Conservation of Matter &amp; Energy ?
Can this effect be exploited to harness 'free ' energy ?
After all , electromagnetic waves are energy , are they not ?
Sure , propulsion that does n't require you to throw stuff out the back door sounds interesting , but free energy sounds even more interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"According to quantum mechanics, a vacuum will be filled with electromagnetic waves leaping in and out of existence.
"I'm confused.
. .
does this violate the law of the Conservation of Matter &amp; Energy?
Can this effect be exploited to harness 'free' energy?
After all, electromagnetic waves are energy, are they not?
Sure, propulsion that doesn't require you to throw stuff out the back door sounds interesting, but free energy sounds even more interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30408126</id>
	<title>This is just the sort of thing...</title>
	<author>SlideRuleGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1260532680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>that will rip a hole in subspace.  I just know it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that will rip a hole in subspace .
I just know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that will rip a hole in subspace.
I just know it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403366</id>
	<title>Why did noone tell me it was the future?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260553800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it mean that I am old because I look around every day and it feels like I am living in a surreal sci-fi story?</p><p>Reactionless drives, energy weapons, smart phones, robotic killing machines, genetically engineered super species? At this rate I wonder if I would be surprised when practical AI or faster than light travel becomes an option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it mean that I am old because I look around every day and it feels like I am living in a surreal sci-fi story ? Reactionless drives , energy weapons , smart phones , robotic killing machines , genetically engineered super species ?
At this rate I wonder if I would be surprised when practical AI or faster than light travel becomes an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it mean that I am old because I look around every day and it feels like I am living in a surreal sci-fi story?Reactionless drives, energy weapons, smart phones, robotic killing machines, genetically engineered super species?
At this rate I wonder if I would be surprised when practical AI or faster than light travel becomes an option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402892</id>
	<title>Re:Momentum Conservation</title>
	<author>tylersoze</author>
	<datestamp>1260552120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My thoughts exactly. Not to mention if "energy is being spent" that means the mass of the object is decreasing (i.e. the whole mass-energy equivalence thing). If this effect is actually real, then somehow there's still energy being thrown out in the opposite direction to conserve momentum, so I'm not sure how it would be any different than any other form of propulsion. The only advantage I could see is that perhaps using this effect produces a higher specific impulse than other modes of propulsion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My thoughts exactly .
Not to mention if " energy is being spent " that means the mass of the object is decreasing ( i.e .
the whole mass-energy equivalence thing ) .
If this effect is actually real , then somehow there 's still energy being thrown out in the opposite direction to conserve momentum , so I 'm not sure how it would be any different than any other form of propulsion .
The only advantage I could see is that perhaps using this effect produces a higher specific impulse than other modes of propulsion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thoughts exactly.
Not to mention if "energy is being spent" that means the mass of the object is decreasing (i.e.
the whole mass-energy equivalence thing).
If this effect is actually real, then somehow there's still energy being thrown out in the opposite direction to conserve momentum, so I'm not sure how it would be any different than any other form of propulsion.
The only advantage I could see is that perhaps using this effect produces a higher specific impulse than other modes of propulsion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404980</id>
	<title>I get the feeling</title>
	<author>IMightB</author>
	<datestamp>1260560040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the more and more frequent article mentioning Quantum Mechanics that humanity is taking the first few steps in taking QM from mostly theoretical to applied on an industrial scale.  That will be an exciting era indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the more and more frequent article mentioning Quantum Mechanics that humanity is taking the first few steps in taking QM from mostly theoretical to applied on an industrial scale .
That will be an exciting era indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the more and more frequent article mentioning Quantum Mechanics that humanity is taking the first few steps in taking QM from mostly theoretical to applied on an industrial scale.
That will be an exciting era indeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404162</id>
	<title>ahem:  you sir</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1260556680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are not "doing science" to it...instead youve created a wholly ungodly nightmare engine from which there is no escape, and lashed it together with physics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>are not " doing science " to it...instead youve created a wholly ungodly nightmare engine from which there is no escape , and lashed it together with physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are not "doing science" to it...instead youve created a wholly ungodly nightmare engine from which there is no escape, and lashed it together with physics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762</id>
	<title>Momentum Conservation</title>
	<author>UnHolier than ever</author>
	<datestamp>1260551580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does this preserve momentum conservation? In the Casimir effect, the force occurs between two plates; as the plates are pushed in opposite directions, total momentum is conserved. Here, it seems as though you get momentum out of thin air (although energy is reffered to as "being spent", but with no indication how).
<br> <br>
I call shenanignans!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this preserve momentum conservation ?
In the Casimir effect , the force occurs between two plates ; as the plates are pushed in opposite directions , total momentum is conserved .
Here , it seems as though you get momentum out of thin air ( although energy is reffered to as " being spent " , but with no indication how ) .
I call shenanignans !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this preserve momentum conservation?
In the Casimir effect, the force occurs between two plates; as the plates are pushed in opposite directions, total momentum is conserved.
Here, it seems as though you get momentum out of thin air (although energy is reffered to as "being spent", but with no indication how).
I call shenanignans!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404920</id>
	<title>Re:Momentum Conservation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260559860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here, it seems as though you get momentum out of thin air</p></div><p>Nonsense, in this case we don't even have thin air, just a vacuum, do try to keep up here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , it seems as though you get momentum out of thin airNonsense , in this case we do n't even have thin air , just a vacuum , do try to keep up here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, it seems as though you get momentum out of thin airNonsense, in this case we don't even have thin air, just a vacuum, do try to keep up here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404096</id>
	<title>Once again Star Trek is prophetic</title>
	<author>kiick</author>
	<datestamp>1260556380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is quite obviously an impulse engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is quite obviously an impulse engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is quite obviously an impulse engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404014</id>
	<title>Re:Momentum Conservation</title>
	<author>joe\_frisch</author>
	<datestamp>1260556080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't tell from the article, but you probably generate an electromagnetic wave the carries the momentum. This would be similar to using a flash-light for propulsion - the light doesn't lose mass, but the photons do provide thrust.</p><p>This isn't a recipe for a practical propulsion system but is is still interesting as a physics experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't tell from the article , but you probably generate an electromagnetic wave the carries the momentum .
This would be similar to using a flash-light for propulsion - the light does n't lose mass , but the photons do provide thrust.This is n't a recipe for a practical propulsion system but is is still interesting as a physics experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't tell from the article, but you probably generate an electromagnetic wave the carries the momentum.
This would be similar to using a flash-light for propulsion - the light doesn't lose mass, but the photons do provide thrust.This isn't a recipe for a practical propulsion system but is is still interesting as a physics experiment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404208</id>
	<title>Re:Those daring men in their quantum pushing machi</title>
	<author>Ryvar</author>
	<datestamp>1260556800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He throws out some tentative numbers at the end of the abstract on the requirements for using this principle to manipulate satellites.  Anyone here with a solid understanding of physics want to take a stab at working out what the energy input-&gt;force output is like assuming a magneto-electric constant of 10^-4 and the particles comprising 50\% of the total object mass?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He throws out some tentative numbers at the end of the abstract on the requirements for using this principle to manipulate satellites .
Anyone here with a solid understanding of physics want to take a stab at working out what the energy input- &gt; force output is like assuming a magneto-electric constant of 10 ^ -4 and the particles comprising 50 \ % of the total object mass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He throws out some tentative numbers at the end of the abstract on the requirements for using this principle to manipulate satellites.
Anyone here with a solid understanding of physics want to take a stab at working out what the energy input-&gt;force output is like assuming a magneto-electric constant of 10^-4 and the particles comprising 50\% of the total object mass?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405944</id>
	<title>Re:Is this different from a photon drive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260564360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Specific impulse is the measurement of efficiency per unit of propellant, sort of like MPG in a car. Maybe you're thinking about thrust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Specific impulse is the measurement of efficiency per unit of propellant , sort of like MPG in a car .
Maybe you 're thinking about thrust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specific impulse is the measurement of efficiency per unit of propellant, sort of like MPG in a car.
Maybe you're thinking about thrust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130</id>
	<title>Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I'm reading the summary right, that's basically a reactionless drive: a device that can accelerate in space without having to throw anything out the back.<br> <br>

A reactionless drive would be nifty because it can gather kinetic energy very easily (that's what makes travel so cheap with one). However, there's a darker side to that coin. If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty, there's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship (or for that matter, a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.99c) on them.<br> <br>

Any propulsion system can be used as a weapon. Thus, the good news of the reactionless drive is that one can easily move about in space. The bad news is that one will <i>have</i> to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm reading the summary right , that 's basically a reactionless drive : a device that can accelerate in space without having to throw anything out the back .
A reactionless drive would be nifty because it can gather kinetic energy very easily ( that 's what makes travel so cheap with one ) .
However , there 's a darker side to that coin .
If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty , there 's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship ( or for that matter , a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at .99c ) on them .
Any propulsion system can be used as a weapon .
Thus , the good news of the reactionless drive is that one can easily move about in space .
The bad news is that one will have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm reading the summary right, that's basically a reactionless drive: a device that can accelerate in space without having to throw anything out the back.
A reactionless drive would be nifty because it can gather kinetic energy very easily (that's what makes travel so cheap with one).
However, there's a darker side to that coin.
If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty, there's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship (or for that matter, a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at .99c) on them.
Any propulsion system can be used as a weapon.
Thus, the good news of the reactionless drive is that one can easily move about in space.
The bad news is that one will have to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404786</id>
	<title>Re:Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>gjt</author>
	<datestamp>1260559320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you consider a vacuum to be the absence of air pressure, then it is still a vacuum - there are no air or other molecules/atoms/hadrons inside the vacuum. But if you imagine a clear glass bottle with all of the air sucked out of it, the fact that you can hold it up in the air and see through it tells you that light particles (photons) are moving into the bottle (through the glass), entering and exiting, before hitting your eye. Photons are the force carrying particles for the electromagnetic force.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you consider a vacuum to be the absence of air pressure , then it is still a vacuum - there are no air or other molecules/atoms/hadrons inside the vacuum .
But if you imagine a clear glass bottle with all of the air sucked out of it , the fact that you can hold it up in the air and see through it tells you that light particles ( photons ) are moving into the bottle ( through the glass ) , entering and exiting , before hitting your eye .
Photons are the force carrying particles for the electromagnetic force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you consider a vacuum to be the absence of air pressure, then it is still a vacuum - there are no air or other molecules/atoms/hadrons inside the vacuum.
But if you imagine a clear glass bottle with all of the air sucked out of it, the fact that you can hold it up in the air and see through it tells you that light particles (photons) are moving into the bottle (through the glass), entering and exiting, before hitting your eye.
Photons are the force carrying particles for the electromagnetic force.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403222</id>
	<title>Re:So , , ,</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1260553200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Colonel Sandurz: It's Mega Maid. She's gone from suck to blow!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Colonel Sandurz : It 's Mega Maid .
She 's gone from suck to blow !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Colonel Sandurz: It's Mega Maid.
She's gone from suck to blow!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407976</id>
	<title>Re:Boy did I read that headline wrong</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1260531600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You could have flavors like Lime Quark and Strange Berry, put the stand up outside the Hadron Collider.</i></p><p>Those sound great, but I'd be very afraid of the flavor Bottom Punch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could have flavors like Lime Quark and Strange Berry , put the stand up outside the Hadron Collider.Those sound great , but I 'd be very afraid of the flavor Bottom Punch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could have flavors like Lime Quark and Strange Berry, put the stand up outside the Hadron Collider.Those sound great, but I'd be very afraid of the flavor Bottom Punch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403658</id>
	<title>Re:Is this different from a photon drive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260554700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My thoughts exactly; "radiation pressure" can push things too, but the tradeoff is always between wasting mass (by pushing lots of stuff slowly) vs wasting energy, by pushing a little bit very fast...and pushing photons, or EM waves, have the least possible mass and the most possible energy.</p><p>"It's always something." --Rosanna Rosanna Danna</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My thoughts exactly ; " radiation pressure " can push things too , but the tradeoff is always between wasting mass ( by pushing lots of stuff slowly ) vs wasting energy , by pushing a little bit very fast...and pushing photons , or EM waves , have the least possible mass and the most possible energy .
" It 's always something .
" --Rosanna Rosanna Danna</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thoughts exactly; "radiation pressure" can push things too, but the tradeoff is always between wasting mass (by pushing lots of stuff slowly) vs wasting energy, by pushing a little bit very fast...and pushing photons, or EM waves, have the least possible mass and the most possible energy.
"It's always something.
" --Rosanna Rosanna Danna</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402714</id>
	<title>2nd POST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260551280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2nd post</htmltext>
<tokenext>2nd post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2nd post</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404722</id>
	<title>Re:Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>drijen</author>
	<datestamp>1260559020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point\_energy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point\_energy</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> 
"No"</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point \ _energy [ wikipedia.org ] " No "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point\_energy [wikipedia.org]
 
"No"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407790</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260530640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Heaven lasts long, and Earth abides<br>What is the secret of their durability?<br>Is it because they do not live for themselves<br>That they endure so long?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -- Lao Tzu,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Datalinks"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Heaven lasts long , and Earth abidesWhat is the secret of their durability ? Is it because they do not live for themselvesThat they endure so long ?
              -- Lao Tzu ,                     Datalinks "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Heaven lasts long, and Earth abidesWhat is the secret of their durability?Is it because they do not live for themselvesThat they endure so long?
              -- Lao Tzu,
                    Datalinks"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405580</id>
	<title>Re:Call me pedantic but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260562680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a particle and antiparticle pair are created and destroyed in a vacuum, and no-one sees it, did it ever really exist?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a particle and antiparticle pair are created and destroyed in a vacuum , and no-one sees it , did it ever really exist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a particle and antiparticle pair are created and destroyed in a vacuum, and no-one sees it, did it ever really exist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403108</id>
	<title>Boy did I read that headline wrong</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1260552780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>How To Build a Quantum Propulsion Machine</i>

</p><p>At first glance I thought it said How To Build a Quantum Popsicle Machine.  Then I thought Quantum Popsicle would have been a great name for a hair band in the 80's.

</p><p>You could have flavors like Lime Quark and Strange Berry, put the stand up outside the Hadron Collider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How To Build a Quantum Propulsion Machine At first glance I thought it said How To Build a Quantum Popsicle Machine .
Then I thought Quantum Popsicle would have been a great name for a hair band in the 80 's .
You could have flavors like Lime Quark and Strange Berry , put the stand up outside the Hadron Collider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How To Build a Quantum Propulsion Machine

At first glance I thought it said How To Build a Quantum Popsicle Machine.
Then I thought Quantum Popsicle would have been a great name for a hair band in the 80's.
You could have flavors like Lime Quark and Strange Berry, put the stand up outside the Hadron Collider.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403324</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260553560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering most other forms of theoretical space propulsion are accomplished with either controlled explosions (the bigger the better) or exceedingly large lasers, this seems relatively safe.  Besides, sending something up to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.99c still takes an extreme amount of energy, even if the system were 100\% efficient (which I highly doubt) getting any sizable object up to that speed is going to take a massive power supply; massive enough that it could probably have been used more directly if you wanted a weapon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering most other forms of theoretical space propulsion are accomplished with either controlled explosions ( the bigger the better ) or exceedingly large lasers , this seems relatively safe .
Besides , sending something up to .99c still takes an extreme amount of energy , even if the system were 100 \ % efficient ( which I highly doubt ) getting any sizable object up to that speed is going to take a massive power supply ; massive enough that it could probably have been used more directly if you wanted a weapon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering most other forms of theoretical space propulsion are accomplished with either controlled explosions (the bigger the better) or exceedingly large lasers, this seems relatively safe.
Besides, sending something up to .99c still takes an extreme amount of energy, even if the system were 100\% efficient (which I highly doubt) getting any sizable object up to that speed is going to take a massive power supply; massive enough that it could probably have been used more directly if you wanted a weapon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406526</id>
	<title>Re:what are we talking here?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260524100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The key to this sort of engine is that it doesn't do that, It can accelerate without throwing off mass.</p></div><p>But it will still need to use up some kind of fuel to rotate the particles to cause the acceleration... and once this fuel is used up, there is no point in hanging on to it any longer.  It's just waste mass.  So not throwing off mass, in this case, would be a handicap.</p><p>Unless, I suppose, you used solar power.  But I'm willing to bet this wouldn't be any more effective than a solar sail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The key to this sort of engine is that it does n't do that , It can accelerate without throwing off mass.But it will still need to use up some kind of fuel to rotate the particles to cause the acceleration... and once this fuel is used up , there is no point in hanging on to it any longer .
It 's just waste mass .
So not throwing off mass , in this case , would be a handicap.Unless , I suppose , you used solar power .
But I 'm willing to bet this would n't be any more effective than a solar sail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key to this sort of engine is that it doesn't do that, It can accelerate without throwing off mass.But it will still need to use up some kind of fuel to rotate the particles to cause the acceleration... and once this fuel is used up, there is no point in hanging on to it any longer.
It's just waste mass.
So not throwing off mass, in this case, would be a handicap.Unless, I suppose, you used solar power.
But I'm willing to bet this wouldn't be any more effective than a solar sail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403256</id>
	<title>Re:Boy did I read that headline wrong</title>
	<author>Again</author>
	<datestamp>1260553320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>How To Build a Quantum Propulsion Machine</i>

</p><p>At first glance I thought it said How To Build a Quantum Popsicle Machine.  Then I thought Quantum Popsicle would have been a great name for a hair band in the 80's.</p></div><p>Except we reached Peak Spandex in 1992 so this idea will never be accepted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How To Build a Quantum Propulsion Machine At first glance I thought it said How To Build a Quantum Popsicle Machine .
Then I thought Quantum Popsicle would have been a great name for a hair band in the 80 's.Except we reached Peak Spandex in 1992 so this idea will never be accepted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How To Build a Quantum Propulsion Machine

At first glance I thought it said How To Build a Quantum Popsicle Machine.
Then I thought Quantum Popsicle would have been a great name for a hair band in the 80's.Except we reached Peak Spandex in 1992 so this idea will never be accepted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402950</id>
	<title>Re:what are we talking here?!</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1260552300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That's not at all connected. What you are thining of is as velocity of an object increases its mass will increase (this is actually a little more complicated. This is only true for things with positive rest mass. If you  have zero rest mass for example then this doesn't happen, but you will always be traveling at the speed of light anyways. If you are a tachyon and  hus have imaginary rest mass and move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum then what happens as you change velocity is more complicated). This will still happen. The key to this sort of drive is that you don't *lose* mass as part of your reaction. Rockets, ion engines, and pretty much every other method of moving things requires you to push against something else to move. A rocket works by sending out particles from one end and so conservation of mass forces it in the other direction. An ion engine works the same way but instead of using hot fast particles uses little ions accelerated by a magnetic field.

</p><p>
The key to this sort of engine is that it doesn't do that, It can accelerate without throwing off mass. But the object will still gain mass as it accelerates nearer to the speed of light. In practice, the second part really won't matter for any practical engine since we will be moving so much slower than the speed of light. The key idea at some level is that you don't need to lose fuel to accelerate (you just lose energy).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not at all connected .
What you are thining of is as velocity of an object increases its mass will increase ( this is actually a little more complicated .
This is only true for things with positive rest mass .
If you have zero rest mass for example then this does n't happen , but you will always be traveling at the speed of light anyways .
If you are a tachyon and hus have imaginary rest mass and move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum then what happens as you change velocity is more complicated ) .
This will still happen .
The key to this sort of drive is that you do n't * lose * mass as part of your reaction .
Rockets , ion engines , and pretty much every other method of moving things requires you to push against something else to move .
A rocket works by sending out particles from one end and so conservation of mass forces it in the other direction .
An ion engine works the same way but instead of using hot fast particles uses little ions accelerated by a magnetic field .
The key to this sort of engine is that it does n't do that , It can accelerate without throwing off mass .
But the object will still gain mass as it accelerates nearer to the speed of light .
In practice , the second part really wo n't matter for any practical engine since we will be moving so much slower than the speed of light .
The key idea at some level is that you do n't need to lose fuel to accelerate ( you just lose energy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That's not at all connected.
What you are thining of is as velocity of an object increases its mass will increase (this is actually a little more complicated.
This is only true for things with positive rest mass.
If you  have zero rest mass for example then this doesn't happen, but you will always be traveling at the speed of light anyways.
If you are a tachyon and  hus have imaginary rest mass and move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum then what happens as you change velocity is more complicated).
This will still happen.
The key to this sort of drive is that you don't *lose* mass as part of your reaction.
Rockets, ion engines, and pretty much every other method of moving things requires you to push against something else to move.
A rocket works by sending out particles from one end and so conservation of mass forces it in the other direction.
An ion engine works the same way but instead of using hot fast particles uses little ions accelerated by a magnetic field.
The key to this sort of engine is that it doesn't do that, It can accelerate without throwing off mass.
But the object will still gain mass as it accelerates nearer to the speed of light.
In practice, the second part really won't matter for any practical engine since we will be moving so much slower than the speed of light.
The key idea at some level is that you don't need to lose fuel to accelerate (you just lose energy).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403428</id>
	<title>Re:Reactionless drives</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1260554040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty, there's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship (or for that matter, a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.99c) on them.</p></div><p>Well, you could.

</p><p>Alternatively, since all that kinetic energy doesn't come out of nowhere, you'd still need to supply a really huge battery. And if you've got one of those, there's probably more convenient ways to use it to kill people than all that inconvenient fiddling about with spaceflight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty , there 's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship ( or for that matter , a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at .99c ) on them.Well , you could .
Alternatively , since all that kinetic energy does n't come out of nowhere , you 'd still need to supply a really huge battery .
And if you 've got one of those , there 's probably more convenient ways to use it to kill people than all that inconvenient fiddling about with spaceflight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can accelerate a ship to near-c with little difficulty, there's not much stopping you from extorting the Earth by threatening to drop the ship (or for that matter, a bunch of tungsten telephone poles traveling at .99c) on them.Well, you could.
Alternatively, since all that kinetic energy doesn't come out of nowhere, you'd still need to supply a really huge battery.
And if you've got one of those, there's probably more convenient ways to use it to kill people than all that inconvenient fiddling about with spaceflight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405226</id>
	<title>All right!</title>
	<author>cowtamer</author>
	<datestamp>1260560940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bring on the hoverboards and the flying cars.  It's almost 2010 already!!</p><p>(Somebody had to say it.  Now can someone better versed in physics than myself explain why this won't happen?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bring on the hoverboards and the flying cars .
It 's almost 2010 already ! !
( Somebody had to say it .
Now can someone better versed in physics than myself explain why this wo n't happen ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bring on the hoverboards and the flying cars.
It's almost 2010 already!!
(Somebody had to say it.
Now can someone better versed in physics than myself explain why this won't happen?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404292</id>
	<title>Re:Nadesico?</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1260556980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anime is definately the place to go if you want to understand theoretical physics. Oh, that and giant robots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anime is definately the place to go if you want to understand theoretical physics .
Oh , that and giant robots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anime is definately the place to go if you want to understand theoretical physics.
Oh, that and giant robots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402744</id>
	<title>what are we talking here?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260551460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Einstein had a theory about changing mass...are they saying they might have licked the problem of relatively?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Einstein had a theory about changing mass...are they saying they might have licked the problem of relatively ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Einstein had a theory about changing mass...are they saying they might have licked the problem of relatively?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406350</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260523440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes indeed.. and there we go again with Tesla's ideas and dreams.</p><p>Among them, because symmetries can be broken, etc. etc.. is energy from the vacuum:</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/user/AJCraddock#g/u</p><p>The science exists, and Novel prizes have been given for it,  but it's just not in the standard text books.. because the theories have been crippled for about a hundred years!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes indeed.. and there we go again with Tesla 's ideas and dreams.Among them , because symmetries can be broken , etc .
etc.. is energy from the vacuum : http : //www.youtube.com/user/AJCraddock # g/uThe science exists , and Novel prizes have been given for it , but it 's just not in the standard text books.. because the theories have been crippled for about a hundred years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes indeed.. and there we go again with Tesla's ideas and dreams.Among them, because symmetries can be broken, etc.
etc.. is energy from the vacuum:http://www.youtube.com/user/AJCraddock#g/uThe science exists, and Novel prizes have been given for it,  but it's just not in the standard text books.. because the theories have been crippled for about a hundred years!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30413876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30410984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30408286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30411044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30442388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30408930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30409056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30411416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30415210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30459004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_149220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30415210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30411416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404242
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404552
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30411044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30413876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30410984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30459004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404560
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407602
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30408286
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405646
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30408930
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30409056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30405950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30442388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30402714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30406266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30404292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_149220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30403736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_149220.30407858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
