<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_09_0253242</id>
	<title>50\% Efficiency Boost From New Fuel Injection System</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268140440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>chudnall notes a Technology Review story on a new gas engine injection system that <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24701/?a=f">promises increased efficiency of up to 50\%</a>. <i>"The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development. This puts it into a supercritical state that allows for very fast and clean combustion, which in turn decreases the amount of fuel needed to propel a vehicle. The company also treats the gasoline with a catalyst that 'activates' it, partially oxidizing it to enhance combustion."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>chudnall notes a Technology Review story on a new gas engine injection system that promises increased efficiency of up to 50 \ % .
" The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber , says Mike Rocke , Transonic 's vice president of business development .
This puts it into a supercritical state that allows for very fast and clean combustion , which in turn decreases the amount of fuel needed to propel a vehicle .
The company also treats the gasoline with a catalyst that 'activates ' it , partially oxidizing it to enhance combustion .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>chudnall notes a Technology Review story on a new gas engine injection system that promises increased efficiency of up to 50\%.
"The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development.
This puts it into a supercritical state that allows for very fast and clean combustion, which in turn decreases the amount of fuel needed to propel a vehicle.
The company also treats the gasoline with a catalyst that 'activates' it, partially oxidizing it to enhance combustion.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416842</id>
	<title>Re:Not just "similar" to a diesel</title>
	<author>jafac</author>
	<datestamp>1268162760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No - not a diesel; you're describing direct injection diesel.  Traditional diesel is not injected under such high pressures, but is compressed in the cylinder by the piston. But modern automotive diesels (mostly) use direct injection, up to 1800 psi.  (Shop manuals actually warn mechanics that when you're working on the fuel injection system, if you operate an injector opened, it can literally squirt diesel fuel through your skin, if you're not careful.  And this is lethal, of course, unless you get immediate medical attention.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No - not a diesel ; you 're describing direct injection diesel .
Traditional diesel is not injected under such high pressures , but is compressed in the cylinder by the piston .
But modern automotive diesels ( mostly ) use direct injection , up to 1800 psi .
( Shop manuals actually warn mechanics that when you 're working on the fuel injection system , if you operate an injector opened , it can literally squirt diesel fuel through your skin , if you 're not careful .
And this is lethal , of course , unless you get immediate medical attention .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No - not a diesel; you're describing direct injection diesel.
Traditional diesel is not injected under such high pressures, but is compressed in the cylinder by the piston.
But modern automotive diesels (mostly) use direct injection, up to 1800 psi.
(Shop manuals actually warn mechanics that when you're working on the fuel injection system, if you operate an injector opened, it can literally squirt diesel fuel through your skin, if you're not careful.
And this is lethal, of course, unless you get immediate medical attention.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413500</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268149440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, volume/distance is better than distance/volume. When measuring in l/100km, I can get zero (the fuel line is closed) and I can never go to infinity. When measuring in mpg, the value approaches infinity as the consuption approches zero and I can never get zero mpg.</p><p>And by the way, 100 km is may be non-standard, but at least we're still talking SI units.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , volume/distance is better than distance/volume .
When measuring in l/100km , I can get zero ( the fuel line is closed ) and I can never go to infinity .
When measuring in mpg , the value approaches infinity as the consuption approches zero and I can never get zero mpg.And by the way , 100 km is may be non-standard , but at least we 're still talking SI units .
: -p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, volume/distance is better than distance/volume.
When measuring in l/100km, I can get zero (the fuel line is closed) and I can never go to infinity.
When measuring in mpg, the value approaches infinity as the consuption approches zero and I can never get zero mpg.And by the way, 100 km is may be non-standard, but at least we're still talking SI units.
:-p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412928</id>
	<title>Cool, but...</title>
	<author>KiwiGod</author>
	<datestamp>1268147100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this is actually an efficient option, then great.  It would be even better if people would just adopt on a mass scale some of the existing efficient technologies...  no, I'm not talking about hybrids.  Small turbo diesels, for instance.  If the majority of the country stopped worrying about having the biggest damn SUV on the road to attack all those off-road obstacles in yuppie suburbia, we'd have be a great start in the right direction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is actually an efficient option , then great .
It would be even better if people would just adopt on a mass scale some of the existing efficient technologies... no , I 'm not talking about hybrids .
Small turbo diesels , for instance .
If the majority of the country stopped worrying about having the biggest damn SUV on the road to attack all those off-road obstacles in yuppie suburbia , we 'd have be a great start in the right direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is actually an efficient option, then great.
It would be even better if people would just adopt on a mass scale some of the existing efficient technologies...  no, I'm not talking about hybrids.
Small turbo diesels, for instance.
If the majority of the country stopped worrying about having the biggest damn SUV on the road to attack all those off-road obstacles in yuppie suburbia, we'd have be a great start in the right direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415106</id>
	<title>Might be possible, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268155740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who has his fair share of university-physics I have to say two things:<br>A) What they claim might be possible. 50\% increase sounds like a lot but<br>B) if you ask yourself the question where the energy for the pre-heating and the pre-pressuring is supposed to come from it's not that magical anymore.</p><p>B) is going to pose a real problem to all this, I guess. Sure, if you are in a laboratory and have access to a lot of extra energy (well, coming from the wall plug) that you can use for all sorts of things you can increase the efficiency of a machine greatly.<br>You could use that energy to cool the incoming air, to increase the pressure in the machine or add some extra heat just for giggles, you can even plug an extra electro motor that exactly cancels out all friction the real motor creates. All these things will increase the efficiency of your machine.</p><p>But if you have to build it into a car you SOMEHOW need the energy to compress the fuel and heat it. How do they do that?<br>I guess pre-heating and pre-compressing CAN increase the effiency. The question now is: Will it increase it enough so it pays for your extra effort (you have to burn fuel to for the heater and pressurer and those things weigh extra as well) plus gives you a bonus that is worth it? If the 50\% increase will all those practical limitations in effect go down to 10\% it still might be worth it.</p><p>Tricking thermodynamics is a tricky business.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has his fair share of university-physics I have to say two things : A ) What they claim might be possible .
50 \ % increase sounds like a lot butB ) if you ask yourself the question where the energy for the pre-heating and the pre-pressuring is supposed to come from it 's not that magical anymore.B ) is going to pose a real problem to all this , I guess .
Sure , if you are in a laboratory and have access to a lot of extra energy ( well , coming from the wall plug ) that you can use for all sorts of things you can increase the efficiency of a machine greatly.You could use that energy to cool the incoming air , to increase the pressure in the machine or add some extra heat just for giggles , you can even plug an extra electro motor that exactly cancels out all friction the real motor creates .
All these things will increase the efficiency of your machine.But if you have to build it into a car you SOMEHOW need the energy to compress the fuel and heat it .
How do they do that ? I guess pre-heating and pre-compressing CAN increase the effiency .
The question now is : Will it increase it enough so it pays for your extra effort ( you have to burn fuel to for the heater and pressurer and those things weigh extra as well ) plus gives you a bonus that is worth it ?
If the 50 \ % increase will all those practical limitations in effect go down to 10 \ % it still might be worth it.Tricking thermodynamics is a tricky business .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has his fair share of university-physics I have to say two things:A) What they claim might be possible.
50\% increase sounds like a lot butB) if you ask yourself the question where the energy for the pre-heating and the pre-pressuring is supposed to come from it's not that magical anymore.B) is going to pose a real problem to all this, I guess.
Sure, if you are in a laboratory and have access to a lot of extra energy (well, coming from the wall plug) that you can use for all sorts of things you can increase the efficiency of a machine greatly.You could use that energy to cool the incoming air, to increase the pressure in the machine or add some extra heat just for giggles, you can even plug an extra electro motor that exactly cancels out all friction the real motor creates.
All these things will increase the efficiency of your machine.But if you have to build it into a car you SOMEHOW need the energy to compress the fuel and heat it.
How do they do that?I guess pre-heating and pre-compressing CAN increase the effiency.
The question now is: Will it increase it enough so it pays for your extra effort (you have to burn fuel to for the heater and pressurer and those things weigh extra as well) plus gives you a bonus that is worth it?
If the 50\% increase will all those practical limitations in effect go down to 10\% it still might be worth it.Tricking thermodynamics is a tricky business.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416572</id>
	<title>Already have that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268161440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development. This puts it into a supercritical state that allows for very fast and clean combustion, which in turn decreases the amount of fuel needed to propel a vehicle.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wow, amazing. It sounds as though they are describing something I've seen before. Now, where have I seen it?</p><p>Oh right. It's called a supercharger (be it belt driven or a turbocharger). They're fairly commonplace now.  I drive a turbocharged car daily. When I drive conservatively I achieve as high as 43mpg, which isn't bad at all for a relatively heavy sedan. Of course, I only drive conservatively from time to time for academic curiosity (how high can I get the mpg without hypermiling?) and love acceleration, so what I usually get is 26mpg.</p><p>What I gather from reading this is that it's some type of supercharger, not intercooled (which means decreased performance and running very lean, so I hope the cylinder walls are made of tungsten and titanium alloys), and running some sort of oxygenator, such as nitrous oxide injection. All very old tech.</p><p>Relatively low compression lean burn engines were tried in the late 70s and early 80s. They didn't work well then due to sludge buildup and short ring and valve seal lifetimes. This engine will only run hotter, so what makes them think this will fare any better? This is going to be a GM-style 36K-mile warranty rather than everyone else's 60K to 150K mile warranty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber , says Mike Rocke , Transonic 's vice president of business development .
This puts it into a supercritical state that allows for very fast and clean combustion , which in turn decreases the amount of fuel needed to propel a vehicle.Wow , amazing .
It sounds as though they are describing something I 've seen before .
Now , where have I seen it ? Oh right .
It 's called a supercharger ( be it belt driven or a turbocharger ) .
They 're fairly commonplace now .
I drive a turbocharged car daily .
When I drive conservatively I achieve as high as 43mpg , which is n't bad at all for a relatively heavy sedan .
Of course , I only drive conservatively from time to time for academic curiosity ( how high can I get the mpg without hypermiling ?
) and love acceleration , so what I usually get is 26mpg.What I gather from reading this is that it 's some type of supercharger , not intercooled ( which means decreased performance and running very lean , so I hope the cylinder walls are made of tungsten and titanium alloys ) , and running some sort of oxygenator , such as nitrous oxide injection .
All very old tech.Relatively low compression lean burn engines were tried in the late 70s and early 80s .
They did n't work well then due to sludge buildup and short ring and valve seal lifetimes .
This engine will only run hotter , so what makes them think this will fare any better ?
This is going to be a GM-style 36K-mile warranty rather than everyone else 's 60K to 150K mile warranty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development.
This puts it into a supercritical state that allows for very fast and clean combustion, which in turn decreases the amount of fuel needed to propel a vehicle.Wow, amazing.
It sounds as though they are describing something I've seen before.
Now, where have I seen it?Oh right.
It's called a supercharger (be it belt driven or a turbocharger).
They're fairly commonplace now.
I drive a turbocharged car daily.
When I drive conservatively I achieve as high as 43mpg, which isn't bad at all for a relatively heavy sedan.
Of course, I only drive conservatively from time to time for academic curiosity (how high can I get the mpg without hypermiling?
) and love acceleration, so what I usually get is 26mpg.What I gather from reading this is that it's some type of supercharger, not intercooled (which means decreased performance and running very lean, so I hope the cylinder walls are made of tungsten and titanium alloys), and running some sort of oxygenator, such as nitrous oxide injection.
All very old tech.Relatively low compression lean burn engines were tried in the late 70s and early 80s.
They didn't work well then due to sludge buildup and short ring and valve seal lifetimes.
This engine will only run hotter, so what makes them think this will fare any better?
This is going to be a GM-style 36K-mile warranty rather than everyone else's 60K to 150K mile warranty.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414910</id>
	<title>Re:Those "up to" words again.</title>
	<author>Anne\_Nonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268155080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must be an ultra-green driver; I never use my brakes and I ignore red lights entirely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must be an ultra-green driver ; I never use my brakes and I ignore red lights entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must be an ultra-green driver; I never use my brakes and I ignore red lights entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415988</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>thsths</author>
	<datestamp>1268159040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; "Hmm... that's not such a big improvement. Maybe the best value is at 5!"</p><p>And that could well be correct - it is called the law of diminishing return. Doubling your fuel economy is great, doubling it again is more difficult, but less beneficial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " Hmm... that 's not such a big improvement .
Maybe the best value is at 5 !
" And that could well be correct - it is called the law of diminishing return .
Doubling your fuel economy is great , doubling it again is more difficult , but less beneficial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "Hmm... that's not such a big improvement.
Maybe the best value is at 5!
"And that could well be correct - it is called the law of diminishing return.
Doubling your fuel economy is great, doubling it again is more difficult, but less beneficial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422256</id>
	<title>Re:Efficient or Green? You choose.</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1268148360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>because filtering out the Nitrogen compounds was the hardest part of scrubbing the exhaust.</p></div></blockquote><p>Lots of water gets the NOx and the light ash, it's not really all that hard but requires a lot of water and a lot of space to put it.<br>Pure oxygen is used in industrial quantities in steelmaking but power generation would require a vast amount more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>because filtering out the Nitrogen compounds was the hardest part of scrubbing the exhaust.Lots of water gets the NOx and the light ash , it 's not really all that hard but requires a lot of water and a lot of space to put it.Pure oxygen is used in industrial quantities in steelmaking but power generation would require a vast amount more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because filtering out the Nitrogen compounds was the hardest part of scrubbing the exhaust.Lots of water gets the NOx and the light ash, it's not really all that hard but requires a lot of water and a lot of space to put it.Pure oxygen is used in industrial quantities in steelmaking but power generation would require a vast amount more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413340</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>vacarul</author>
	<datestamp>1268148780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>l/100km

it's like... drag racing: the distance is constant and you measure how much fuel you burn to cover that distance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>l/100km it 's like... drag racing : the distance is constant and you measure how much fuel you burn to cover that distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>l/100km

it's like... drag racing: the distance is constant and you measure how much fuel you burn to cover that distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413286</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>skroops</author>
	<datestamp>1268148540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>hours of operation per 58 km</htmltext>
<tokenext>hours of operation per 58 km</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hours of operation per 58 km</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416952</id>
	<title>Not convinced.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1268163300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought direct injection was supposed to accomplish some of what's being claimed here. Fuel is not pre-heated, but it is injected into the combustion chamber at extremely high pressure and already allows for very lean combustion. And to be honest, it's debatable whether the added complication of DI is even worth insignificant gains in fuel economy.</p><p>I went from a 2.2 liter 4-cylinder to a 2.0 liter 4-cylinder with direct injection. Both produce the same horsepower and fuel consumption is virtually identical, 24-26mpg on average. What advantage there may be with the 2.0 could be attributed to the smaller displacement.</p><p>Then there's an issue that's affecting virtually all direct injection engines. Excessive and premature buildup has been found on intake valves. Because no fuel passes over the intake there is no cleaning action occurring. So whatever cleansers may be present in fuel, or fuel additives are totally ineffective. Apparently the problem is linked to recirculation of unburned fuels, carbon and whatnot cycling through the system. But from my understanding part of the problem has to do with the slightly higher temperatures DI engines run at which help promote this sort of buildup. Additionally, some claim that DI engines have a tendency to breakdown engine oil more quickly than conventional fuel injection.</p><p>As I've mentioned, it's a fairly widespread problem and some automakers are trying to find solutions. VW lists these as known issues in their patent filings for their DI engines and list one possible solution as cutting off recirculation. Of course that isn't permissible because of EPA requirements. I've read that BMW maybe institute some kind of intake cleaning regimen as part of regular maintenance. Ford, I believe, is working on a solution that incorporates both fuel and direct injection to address the problem. I suppose it's just the growing pains of new technology.</p><p>I'm not entirely sure how this new solution is will help in that regard. Unless ignition is happening at even higher temperatures and burns off some of that buildup. But more importantly, I'm skeptical that it will net much of anything in terms of gains. From what these guys describe I don't see their engine doing anything profoundly different from existing designs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought direct injection was supposed to accomplish some of what 's being claimed here .
Fuel is not pre-heated , but it is injected into the combustion chamber at extremely high pressure and already allows for very lean combustion .
And to be honest , it 's debatable whether the added complication of DI is even worth insignificant gains in fuel economy.I went from a 2.2 liter 4-cylinder to a 2.0 liter 4-cylinder with direct injection .
Both produce the same horsepower and fuel consumption is virtually identical , 24-26mpg on average .
What advantage there may be with the 2.0 could be attributed to the smaller displacement.Then there 's an issue that 's affecting virtually all direct injection engines .
Excessive and premature buildup has been found on intake valves .
Because no fuel passes over the intake there is no cleaning action occurring .
So whatever cleansers may be present in fuel , or fuel additives are totally ineffective .
Apparently the problem is linked to recirculation of unburned fuels , carbon and whatnot cycling through the system .
But from my understanding part of the problem has to do with the slightly higher temperatures DI engines run at which help promote this sort of buildup .
Additionally , some claim that DI engines have a tendency to breakdown engine oil more quickly than conventional fuel injection.As I 've mentioned , it 's a fairly widespread problem and some automakers are trying to find solutions .
VW lists these as known issues in their patent filings for their DI engines and list one possible solution as cutting off recirculation .
Of course that is n't permissible because of EPA requirements .
I 've read that BMW maybe institute some kind of intake cleaning regimen as part of regular maintenance .
Ford , I believe , is working on a solution that incorporates both fuel and direct injection to address the problem .
I suppose it 's just the growing pains of new technology.I 'm not entirely sure how this new solution is will help in that regard .
Unless ignition is happening at even higher temperatures and burns off some of that buildup .
But more importantly , I 'm skeptical that it will net much of anything in terms of gains .
From what these guys describe I do n't see their engine doing anything profoundly different from existing designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought direct injection was supposed to accomplish some of what's being claimed here.
Fuel is not pre-heated, but it is injected into the combustion chamber at extremely high pressure and already allows for very lean combustion.
And to be honest, it's debatable whether the added complication of DI is even worth insignificant gains in fuel economy.I went from a 2.2 liter 4-cylinder to a 2.0 liter 4-cylinder with direct injection.
Both produce the same horsepower and fuel consumption is virtually identical, 24-26mpg on average.
What advantage there may be with the 2.0 could be attributed to the smaller displacement.Then there's an issue that's affecting virtually all direct injection engines.
Excessive and premature buildup has been found on intake valves.
Because no fuel passes over the intake there is no cleaning action occurring.
So whatever cleansers may be present in fuel, or fuel additives are totally ineffective.
Apparently the problem is linked to recirculation of unburned fuels, carbon and whatnot cycling through the system.
But from my understanding part of the problem has to do with the slightly higher temperatures DI engines run at which help promote this sort of buildup.
Additionally, some claim that DI engines have a tendency to breakdown engine oil more quickly than conventional fuel injection.As I've mentioned, it's a fairly widespread problem and some automakers are trying to find solutions.
VW lists these as known issues in their patent filings for their DI engines and list one possible solution as cutting off recirculation.
Of course that isn't permissible because of EPA requirements.
I've read that BMW maybe institute some kind of intake cleaning regimen as part of regular maintenance.
Ford, I believe, is working on a solution that incorporates both fuel and direct injection to address the problem.
I suppose it's just the growing pains of new technology.I'm not entirely sure how this new solution is will help in that regard.
Unless ignition is happening at even higher temperatures and burns off some of that buildup.
But more importantly, I'm skeptical that it will net much of anything in terms of gains.
From what these guys describe I don't see their engine doing anything profoundly different from existing designs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414002</id>
	<title>Re:Those "up to" words again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268151660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know, with fuel economy I like "up to". It tells me what the maximum will be. I don't care about "average fuel efficiency", because the average driver is an idiot who races to the red lights, burns rubber after sitting at the green light for 30 seconds (at zero mpg), tailgates, hits the brakes constantly, etc.</p><p>"Average" fuel economy is, to me, a useless metric. I'm nowhere near average.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , with fuel economy I like " up to " .
It tells me what the maximum will be .
I do n't care about " average fuel efficiency " , because the average driver is an idiot who races to the red lights , burns rubber after sitting at the green light for 30 seconds ( at zero mpg ) , tailgates , hits the brakes constantly , etc .
" Average " fuel economy is , to me , a useless metric .
I 'm nowhere near average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, with fuel economy I like "up to".
It tells me what the maximum will be.
I don't care about "average fuel efficiency", because the average driver is an idiot who races to the red lights, burns rubber after sitting at the green light for 30 seconds (at zero mpg), tailgates, hits the brakes constantly, etc.
"Average" fuel economy is, to me, a useless metric.
I'm nowhere near average.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412384</id>
	<title>It's probably just lab figures but</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1268144460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds damned impressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds damned impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds damned impressive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415136</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1268155800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm skeptical because I've heard so many reports like this.</p><p>However it's not physically improbable to achieve 30\% efficiency with an internal combustion engine.  Even an ordinary ICE theoretically can achieve 37\%.  If the combustion temperature is raised, it is conceivable that higher efficiencies could be achieved.</p><p>As far as mileage is concerned, that's not related in a straightforward way to engine efficiency under ideal conditions. Toyota's Prius is rated at 51 MPG highway; that's not the electrical system doing that, it's an engine that's tuned to be very efficient at highway speeds and which doesn't have to deliver torque at low speeds.</p><p>It's not out of the question to almost obtain twice that in a ultralight prototype vehicle with an engine that marginally outperforms the Prius engine under those conditions, if the rest of the power train was a little simpler and more efficient.  The key to the Prius engine is that it can be tuned for higher peak power because it doesn't have to generate much torque at low speeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm skeptical because I 've heard so many reports like this.However it 's not physically improbable to achieve 30 \ % efficiency with an internal combustion engine .
Even an ordinary ICE theoretically can achieve 37 \ % .
If the combustion temperature is raised , it is conceivable that higher efficiencies could be achieved.As far as mileage is concerned , that 's not related in a straightforward way to engine efficiency under ideal conditions .
Toyota 's Prius is rated at 51 MPG highway ; that 's not the electrical system doing that , it 's an engine that 's tuned to be very efficient at highway speeds and which does n't have to deliver torque at low speeds.It 's not out of the question to almost obtain twice that in a ultralight prototype vehicle with an engine that marginally outperforms the Prius engine under those conditions , if the rest of the power train was a little simpler and more efficient .
The key to the Prius engine is that it can be tuned for higher peak power because it does n't have to generate much torque at low speeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm skeptical because I've heard so many reports like this.However it's not physically improbable to achieve 30\% efficiency with an internal combustion engine.
Even an ordinary ICE theoretically can achieve 37\%.
If the combustion temperature is raised, it is conceivable that higher efficiencies could be achieved.As far as mileage is concerned, that's not related in a straightforward way to engine efficiency under ideal conditions.
Toyota's Prius is rated at 51 MPG highway; that's not the electrical system doing that, it's an engine that's tuned to be very efficient at highway speeds and which doesn't have to deliver torque at low speeds.It's not out of the question to almost obtain twice that in a ultralight prototype vehicle with an engine that marginally outperforms the Prius engine under those conditions, if the rest of the power train was a little simpler and more efficient.
The key to the Prius engine is that it can be tuned for higher peak power because it doesn't have to generate much torque at low speeds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413180</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>knarf</author>
	<datestamp>1268148120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I.e., basically 2.4l per 100 km on the highway.</p></div></blockquote><p>So? Both Volkswagen as well as Fiat have produced cars for years now which can do 100 km on less than 3 liter of diesel at that speed. Don't forget that the efficiency of a diesel stems partly from the high compression ratio and the absense of a throttle valve. It is certainly possible to create a petrol engine which can achieve this level of efficiency, even though the energy density of petrol is slightly lower than that of diesel. As to whether the system this article is about is snake oil or not I don't know but there is nothing impossible about driving 100 km on less than 3 liters of fuel. Or 2 for that matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I.e. , basically 2.4l per 100 km on the highway.So ?
Both Volkswagen as well as Fiat have produced cars for years now which can do 100 km on less than 3 liter of diesel at that speed .
Do n't forget that the efficiency of a diesel stems partly from the high compression ratio and the absense of a throttle valve .
It is certainly possible to create a petrol engine which can achieve this level of efficiency , even though the energy density of petrol is slightly lower than that of diesel .
As to whether the system this article is about is snake oil or not I do n't know but there is nothing impossible about driving 100 km on less than 3 liters of fuel .
Or 2 for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I.e., basically 2.4l per 100 km on the highway.So?
Both Volkswagen as well as Fiat have produced cars for years now which can do 100 km on less than 3 liter of diesel at that speed.
Don't forget that the efficiency of a diesel stems partly from the high compression ratio and the absense of a throttle valve.
It is certainly possible to create a petrol engine which can achieve this level of efficiency, even though the energy density of petrol is slightly lower than that of diesel.
As to whether the system this article is about is snake oil or not I don't know but there is nothing impossible about driving 100 km on less than 3 liters of fuel.
Or 2 for that matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414116</id>
	<title>Re:Let me have doubts...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268152140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Let me have some doubts about anything that boasts more than 10\% economy.</i></p><p>My large sedan gets roughly twice the mileage of a 1965 VW Beetle. I wonder what the mileage in a 1925 Ford was?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me have some doubts about anything that boasts more than 10 \ % economy.My large sedan gets roughly twice the mileage of a 1965 VW Beetle .
I wonder what the mileage in a 1925 Ford was ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me have some doubts about anything that boasts more than 10\% economy.My large sedan gets roughly twice the mileage of a 1965 VW Beetle.
I wonder what the mileage in a 1925 Ford was?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416986</id>
	<title>I'm confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268163420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm confused; does someone have a car analogy that could help?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused ; does someone have a car analogy that could help ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused; does someone have a car analogy that could help?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413370</id>
	<title>Lean mix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268148900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was always told that if the mix is too lean it will damage the engine.  I had a wrx sti and on the dyno when the mix was lean it produced a lot more power (torque &amp; hp). So the real question, which is also hinted in the article, is what is the lifespan of the engine under these conditions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was always told that if the mix is too lean it will damage the engine .
I had a wrx sti and on the dyno when the mix was lean it produced a lot more power ( torque &amp; hp ) .
So the real question , which is also hinted in the article , is what is the lifespan of the engine under these conditions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was always told that if the mix is too lean it will damage the engine.
I had a wrx sti and on the dyno when the mix was lean it produced a lot more power (torque &amp; hp).
So the real question, which is also hinted in the article, is what is the lifespan of the engine under these conditions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422770</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>stormboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268153280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These measurements may also highlight a cultural difference between people who use distance/fuel (MPG) and fuel/distance (l/100km), besides the use of imperial versus metric systems.
</p><p>
"I have access to fuel. How far can I go?" versus "I need to travel somewhere. How much fuel do I need?"
</p><p>
In other words: "use what we have" versus "use what we need".
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These measurements may also highlight a cultural difference between people who use distance/fuel ( MPG ) and fuel/distance ( l/100km ) , besides the use of imperial versus metric systems .
" I have access to fuel .
How far can I go ?
" versus " I need to travel somewhere .
How much fuel do I need ?
" In other words : " use what we have " versus " use what we need " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These measurements may also highlight a cultural difference between people who use distance/fuel (MPG) and fuel/distance (l/100km), besides the use of imperial versus metric systems.
"I have access to fuel.
How far can I go?
" versus "I need to travel somewhere.
How much fuel do I need?
"

In other words: "use what we have" versus "use what we need".
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31418384</id>
	<title>Re:Efficient or Green? You choose.</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1268126160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So on the one hand an efficient engine will be running petrol / gasoline at 13:1 compression ratios, or diesel at 25:1 compression ratios, and polluting the crap out of everything. On the other hand, a "green" engine will be running petrol / gasoline at 9:1 compression ratios, or diesel at 17:1, and wasting energy efficiency like an ice rink in Dubai.</p></div><p>Per mile driven, which one ends up polluting less?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So on the one hand an efficient engine will be running petrol / gasoline at 13 : 1 compression ratios , or diesel at 25 : 1 compression ratios , and polluting the crap out of everything .
On the other hand , a " green " engine will be running petrol / gasoline at 9 : 1 compression ratios , or diesel at 17 : 1 , and wasting energy efficiency like an ice rink in Dubai.Per mile driven , which one ends up polluting less ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So on the one hand an efficient engine will be running petrol / gasoline at 13:1 compression ratios, or diesel at 25:1 compression ratios, and polluting the crap out of everything.
On the other hand, a "green" engine will be running petrol / gasoline at 9:1 compression ratios, or diesel at 17:1, and wasting energy efficiency like an ice rink in Dubai.Per mile driven, which one ends up polluting less?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413394</id>
	<title>Re:NOx and emissions?</title>
	<author>bloobloo</author>
	<datestamp>1268149020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was looking for this too. NOx formation is a big issue and it restricts the efficiency of industrial processes too, not just car engines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was looking for this too .
NOx formation is a big issue and it restricts the efficiency of industrial processes too , not just car engines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was looking for this too.
NOx formation is a big issue and it restricts the efficiency of industrial processes too, not just car engines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412400</id>
	<title>Congratulations.</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1268144580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've just invented direct injection, again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've just invented direct injection , again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've just invented direct injection, again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412572</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268145360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New in the News....gas companies announce a 50\% INCREASE in gas prices....</p><p>NEGATED!</p><p>NEXT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New in the News....gas companies announce a 50 \ % INCREASE in gas prices....NEGATED ! NEXT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New in the News....gas companies announce a 50\% INCREASE in gas prices....NEGATED!NEXT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31419700</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1268131620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're a car geek or an asshole, you might actually care about that stuff.  Most people just want to know if what they have in the tank will get them as far as they need to go.  For that, MPG (or LKM) makes more sense because people can tell by looking at the gas (petrol) gauge how much fuel they have.  They might not be driving 100KM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're a car geek or an asshole , you might actually care about that stuff .
Most people just want to know if what they have in the tank will get them as far as they need to go .
For that , MPG ( or LKM ) makes more sense because people can tell by looking at the gas ( petrol ) gauge how much fuel they have .
They might not be driving 100KM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're a car geek or an asshole, you might actually care about that stuff.
Most people just want to know if what they have in the tank will get them as far as they need to go.
For that, MPG (or LKM) makes more sense because people can tell by looking at the gas (petrol) gauge how much fuel they have.
They might not be driving 100KM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413576</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268149800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not use km/l?</p> </div><p>This is strictly a usability issue, and if you carefully and realistically consider user needs you'll see that l/100 km is better.  Consider a car-buying couple:</p><p>"Hey, this one gets 10 mpg!"</p><p>"But this one gets 20 mpg!  It's twice as good."</p><p>"This one gets 30 mpg, that's even better!"</p><p>"Yeah, that's as big a difference as between 10 and 20.  Let's go for that one!"</p><p>Or:</p><p>"This one gets 10 l/100 km!"</p><p>"The one gets 5 l/100 km!  It's twice as good."</p><p>"This one gets 3.3 l/100km, that's even better!"</p><p>"Hmm... that's not such a big improvement.  Maybe the best value is at 5!"</p><p>The ratios are the same in the two cases, but the sad fact is that most people can't deal with ratios, and l/100km produces differences that reflect the relative magnitude of improvement, whereas the inverse scaling does not.</p><p>100 km is also a nice convenient unit for driving distance, and produces numbers for typical vehicles that can be adequately represented as small integers.  But the specific choice of 100 km is less important than having a linear rather than an inverse scale (scaling as x rather than 1/x with fixed driving distance, which is the realistic constraint.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not use km/l ?
This is strictly a usability issue , and if you carefully and realistically consider user needs you 'll see that l/100 km is better .
Consider a car-buying couple : " Hey , this one gets 10 mpg !
" " But this one gets 20 mpg !
It 's twice as good .
" " This one gets 30 mpg , that 's even better !
" " Yeah , that 's as big a difference as between 10 and 20 .
Let 's go for that one !
" Or : " This one gets 10 l/100 km !
" " The one gets 5 l/100 km !
It 's twice as good .
" " This one gets 3.3 l/100km , that 's even better ! " " Hmm.. .
that 's not such a big improvement .
Maybe the best value is at 5 !
" The ratios are the same in the two cases , but the sad fact is that most people ca n't deal with ratios , and l/100km produces differences that reflect the relative magnitude of improvement , whereas the inverse scaling does not.100 km is also a nice convenient unit for driving distance , and produces numbers for typical vehicles that can be adequately represented as small integers .
But the specific choice of 100 km is less important than having a linear rather than an inverse scale ( scaling as x rather than 1/x with fixed driving distance , which is the realistic constraint .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not use km/l?
This is strictly a usability issue, and if you carefully and realistically consider user needs you'll see that l/100 km is better.
Consider a car-buying couple:"Hey, this one gets 10 mpg!
""But this one gets 20 mpg!
It's twice as good.
""This one gets 30 mpg, that's even better!
""Yeah, that's as big a difference as between 10 and 20.
Let's go for that one!
"Or:"This one gets 10 l/100 km!
""The one gets 5 l/100 km!
It's twice as good.
""This one gets 3.3 l/100km, that's even better!""Hmm...
that's not such a big improvement.
Maybe the best value is at 5!
"The ratios are the same in the two cases, but the sad fact is that most people can't deal with ratios, and l/100km produces differences that reflect the relative magnitude of improvement, whereas the inverse scaling does not.100 km is also a nice convenient unit for driving distance, and produces numbers for typical vehicles that can be adequately represented as small integers.
But the specific choice of 100 km is less important than having a linear rather than an inverse scale (scaling as x rather than 1/x with fixed driving distance, which is the realistic constraint.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412688</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't solve the oil problem</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1268145960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The technology (assuming it works, which is a big if at this point) may be applicable to renewable fuels as well, particularly if those biomass-based gasoline/diesel analogs ever work out.</p><p>The thing is, you're never going to really get away from some kind of combustible fuel for some methods of transportation.  Yeah, trains can be electrified, everyday commuter cars equipped with batteries, and large enough ships equipped with nuclear power... but large trucks, construction equipment, "traveling" cars used for longer distances, smaller seagoing vessels, and pretty much any aircraft larger than a Cherokee or 172 will still need something combustible, whether it's something like biodiesel, or ethanol, or algae-based.  Weight and volume restrictions pretty much require something with a high energy density (and the weight reduction with consumption benefits aircraft); you won't find those with fuel cells or batteries or cryogenic hydrogen tanks.</p><p>There are several promising biomass-based fuels in development; Embry-Riddle will soon be testing a sorghum-derived fuel with better performance than regular avgas, and without the lead.  Combine this with more efficient IC engines, and you'll not only reduce emissions output (carbon, toxins, particulates) but also reduce the dependency on foreign energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The technology ( assuming it works , which is a big if at this point ) may be applicable to renewable fuels as well , particularly if those biomass-based gasoline/diesel analogs ever work out.The thing is , you 're never going to really get away from some kind of combustible fuel for some methods of transportation .
Yeah , trains can be electrified , everyday commuter cars equipped with batteries , and large enough ships equipped with nuclear power... but large trucks , construction equipment , " traveling " cars used for longer distances , smaller seagoing vessels , and pretty much any aircraft larger than a Cherokee or 172 will still need something combustible , whether it 's something like biodiesel , or ethanol , or algae-based .
Weight and volume restrictions pretty much require something with a high energy density ( and the weight reduction with consumption benefits aircraft ) ; you wo n't find those with fuel cells or batteries or cryogenic hydrogen tanks.There are several promising biomass-based fuels in development ; Embry-Riddle will soon be testing a sorghum-derived fuel with better performance than regular avgas , and without the lead .
Combine this with more efficient IC engines , and you 'll not only reduce emissions output ( carbon , toxins , particulates ) but also reduce the dependency on foreign energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The technology (assuming it works, which is a big if at this point) may be applicable to renewable fuels as well, particularly if those biomass-based gasoline/diesel analogs ever work out.The thing is, you're never going to really get away from some kind of combustible fuel for some methods of transportation.
Yeah, trains can be electrified, everyday commuter cars equipped with batteries, and large enough ships equipped with nuclear power... but large trucks, construction equipment, "traveling" cars used for longer distances, smaller seagoing vessels, and pretty much any aircraft larger than a Cherokee or 172 will still need something combustible, whether it's something like biodiesel, or ethanol, or algae-based.
Weight and volume restrictions pretty much require something with a high energy density (and the weight reduction with consumption benefits aircraft); you won't find those with fuel cells or batteries or cryogenic hydrogen tanks.There are several promising biomass-based fuels in development; Embry-Riddle will soon be testing a sorghum-derived fuel with better performance than regular avgas, and without the lead.
Combine this with more efficient IC engines, and you'll not only reduce emissions output (carbon, toxins, particulates) but also reduce the dependency on foreign energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268146980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this an acceptable place to rant about the silly l/100km efficiency measurement? Why not use km/l? This numbers are still in a usable range, and it avoids use of an arbitrary or non-standard constant (100). What measurement do you use in Europe for 'mileage'?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this an acceptable place to rant about the silly l/100km efficiency measurement ?
Why not use km/l ?
This numbers are still in a usable range , and it avoids use of an arbitrary or non-standard constant ( 100 ) .
What measurement do you use in Europe for 'mileage ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this an acceptable place to rant about the silly l/100km efficiency measurement?
Why not use km/l?
This numbers are still in a usable range, and it avoids use of an arbitrary or non-standard constant (100).
What measurement do you use in Europe for 'mileage'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416934</id>
	<title>Re:Efficient or Green? You choose.</title>
	<author>Tekfactory</author>
	<datestamp>1268163180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, I'm reading an article one day about how to green coal plants.</p><p>One of the ideas mentioned was to pump pure oxygen into the furnaces instead of outside air because filtering out the Nitrogen compounds was the hardest part of scrubbing the exhaust.</p><p>So at what point does running an Oxygen Concentrator/Generator under the hood make sense because of the enhanced compression ratio? VW Jetta Diesel, Pickup/SUV, 18 Wheeler, Supertanker. Caveat on the supertanker a 90,000 HP Diesel engine on one of those burns 250 tons of fuel a day according to a recent Modern Marvels on Horsepower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I 'm reading an article one day about how to green coal plants.One of the ideas mentioned was to pump pure oxygen into the furnaces instead of outside air because filtering out the Nitrogen compounds was the hardest part of scrubbing the exhaust.So at what point does running an Oxygen Concentrator/Generator under the hood make sense because of the enhanced compression ratio ?
VW Jetta Diesel , Pickup/SUV , 18 Wheeler , Supertanker .
Caveat on the supertanker a 90,000 HP Diesel engine on one of those burns 250 tons of fuel a day according to a recent Modern Marvels on Horsepower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I'm reading an article one day about how to green coal plants.One of the ideas mentioned was to pump pure oxygen into the furnaces instead of outside air because filtering out the Nitrogen compounds was the hardest part of scrubbing the exhaust.So at what point does running an Oxygen Concentrator/Generator under the hood make sense because of the enhanced compression ratio?
VW Jetta Diesel, Pickup/SUV, 18 Wheeler, Supertanker.
Caveat on the supertanker a 90,000 HP Diesel engine on one of those burns 250 tons of fuel a day according to a recent Modern Marvels on Horsepower.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413678</id>
	<title>Brilliant!</title>
	<author>jduhls</author>
	<datestamp>1268150220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An innovation that utilizes a non-sustainable energy source!  Where's my friggin' air-powered hover-bike, you fools!?!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>An innovation that utilizes a non-sustainable energy source !
Where 's my friggin ' air-powered hover-bike , you fools ! ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An innovation that utilizes a non-sustainable energy source!
Where's my friggin' air-powered hover-bike, you fools!?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415050</id>
	<title>Re:Not just "similar" to a diesel</title>
	<author>bkaul01</author>
	<datestamp>1268155500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not sure what is considered 'super critical' but diesel fuel under 180 MPa/26,000 psi is pretty super critical to me.</p></div><p>"Supercritical" refers to pressures/temperatures beyond the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical\_point\_(thermodynamics)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">critical point</a> [wikipedia.org], in a regime where there aren't distinct liquid and gas phases for the fluid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure what is considered 'super critical ' but diesel fuel under 180 MPa/26,000 psi is pretty super critical to me .
" Supercritical " refers to pressures/temperatures beyond the critical point [ wikipedia.org ] , in a regime where there are n't distinct liquid and gas phases for the fluid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure what is considered 'super critical' but diesel fuel under 180 MPa/26,000 psi is pretty super critical to me.
"Supercritical" refers to pressures/temperatures beyond the critical point [wikipedia.org], in a regime where there aren't distinct liquid and gas phases for the fluid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415694</id>
	<title>Re:NOx and emissions?</title>
	<author>IceFoot</author>
	<datestamp>1268157840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This reminds me of articles in Popular Science during the 70's touting columnist (and notable mechanic) Smokey Yunick.</i></p><p>Smokey appeared in Popular Mechanix, not Popular Science, which featured the fictional mechanic Gus Wilson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of articles in Popular Science during the 70 's touting columnist ( and notable mechanic ) Smokey Yunick.Smokey appeared in Popular Mechanix , not Popular Science , which featured the fictional mechanic Gus Wilson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of articles in Popular Science during the 70's touting columnist (and notable mechanic) Smokey Yunick.Smokey appeared in Popular Mechanix, not Popular Science, which featured the fictional mechanic Gus Wilson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412626</id>
	<title>Re:If you post before this</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1268145600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you post before this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then you haven't read the damn article!</p></div><p>Unless you believe in supporting the media you enjoy, and therefore subscribe. Then you've had a good 10 or 15 minutes to read the article before it got Slashdotted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you post before this ... then you have n't read the damn article ! Unless you believe in supporting the media you enjoy , and therefore subscribe .
Then you 've had a good 10 or 15 minutes to read the article before it got Slashdotted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you post before this ... then you haven't read the damn article!Unless you believe in supporting the media you enjoy, and therefore subscribe.
Then you've had a good 10 or 15 minutes to read the article before it got Slashdotted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412534</id>
	<title>Re:If you post before this</title>
	<author>Socguy</author>
	<datestamp>1268145180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, they REPORT that they get 64 miles/gallon.   Who verified this?  Lots of startups make outrageous claims to suck in investors.   Is this under optimal conditions? In the lab, the Prius gets amazing mileage too.  How heavy is their prototype?  That's one funky, aerodynamic looking car... why not use a standard automobile... you know, something that might actually be driven by you on your way to work.<br> <br>

Oh, but I'm sure when the technology never quite makes it to market, die hard conspiracy nuts will claim some Oil company bought the technology only to destroy it so they can sell more oil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they REPORT that they get 64 miles/gallon .
Who verified this ?
Lots of startups make outrageous claims to suck in investors .
Is this under optimal conditions ?
In the lab , the Prius gets amazing mileage too .
How heavy is their prototype ?
That 's one funky , aerodynamic looking car... why not use a standard automobile... you know , something that might actually be driven by you on your way to work .
Oh , but I 'm sure when the technology never quite makes it to market , die hard conspiracy nuts will claim some Oil company bought the technology only to destroy it so they can sell more oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they REPORT that they get 64 miles/gallon.
Who verified this?
Lots of startups make outrageous claims to suck in investors.
Is this under optimal conditions?
In the lab, the Prius gets amazing mileage too.
How heavy is their prototype?
That's one funky, aerodynamic looking car... why not use a standard automobile... you know, something that might actually be driven by you on your way to work.
Oh, but I'm sure when the technology never quite makes it to market, die hard conspiracy nuts will claim some Oil company bought the technology only to destroy it so they can sell more oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415464</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1268156880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... you're advocating an inverse scale specifically to minimize the appearance of effectiveness of higher efficiency cars?  And that most people are better at dealing with fractional ratios instead of integer ratios?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... you 're advocating an inverse scale specifically to minimize the appearance of effectiveness of higher efficiency cars ?
And that most people are better at dealing with fractional ratios instead of integer ratios ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... you're advocating an inverse scale specifically to minimize the appearance of effectiveness of higher efficiency cars?
And that most people are better at dealing with fractional ratios instead of integer ratios?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412430</id>
	<title>Re:If you post before this</title>
	<author>kliklik</author>
	<datestamp>1268144700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or 3.7 l/100km</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or 3.7 l/100km</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or 3.7 l/100km</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413448</id>
	<title>Reminds me of an Einstein quote:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268149200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;Leaving research exclusively in the hands of engineers, we would have perfectly functioning oil lamps, but no electricity.&rdquo;</p><p>Same thing with combustion engines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   Leaving research exclusively in the hands of engineers , we would have perfectly functioning oil lamps , but no electricity.    Same thing with combustion engines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“Leaving research exclusively in the hands of engineers, we would have perfectly functioning oil lamps, but no electricity.”Same thing with combustion engines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416118</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1268159520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm also skeptical of this because one of the advantages of Direct Injection is that the gasoline is <i>colder</i> thus allowing for a higher compression ratio, thus resulting in more power from the same amount of gasoline, thus reducing the RPM needed to go a give speed, thus improving MPG.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also skeptical of this because one of the advantages of Direct Injection is that the gasoline is colder thus allowing for a higher compression ratio , thus resulting in more power from the same amount of gasoline , thus reducing the RPM needed to go a give speed , thus improving MPG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also skeptical of this because one of the advantages of Direct Injection is that the gasoline is colder thus allowing for a higher compression ratio, thus resulting in more power from the same amount of gasoline, thus reducing the RPM needed to go a give speed, thus improving MPG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414234</id>
	<title>Efficient or Green? You choose.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268152560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As any (mechanical) engineer knows, to get an efficient internal combustion engine you want compression pressures as high as possible and combustion temperatures as high as possible (an oversimplification, to be sure) because an internal combustion engine is a heat engine, and the greater the temperature and pressure difference between the combustion event in the cylinder, and ambient conditions at the end of the exhaust system, the more efficient it is.</p><p>UNFORTUNATELY, some three quarters of the gas that the internal combustion engine draws in from the atmosphere is Nitrogen, and when you expose Nitrogen to the high pressures and temperatures of a combustion chamber, what happens next is simple, and unavoidable, chemistry, you get oxides of nitrogen out the exhaust pipe.</p><p>So on the one hand an efficient engine will be running petrol / gasoline at 13:1 compression ratios, or diesel at 25:1 compression ratios, and polluting the crap out of everything.</p><p>On the other hand, a "green" engine will be running petrol / gasoline at 9:1 compression ratios, or diesel at 17:1, and wasting energy efficiency like an ice rink in Dubai.</p><p>You can't have it both ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As any ( mechanical ) engineer knows , to get an efficient internal combustion engine you want compression pressures as high as possible and combustion temperatures as high as possible ( an oversimplification , to be sure ) because an internal combustion engine is a heat engine , and the greater the temperature and pressure difference between the combustion event in the cylinder , and ambient conditions at the end of the exhaust system , the more efficient it is.UNFORTUNATELY , some three quarters of the gas that the internal combustion engine draws in from the atmosphere is Nitrogen , and when you expose Nitrogen to the high pressures and temperatures of a combustion chamber , what happens next is simple , and unavoidable , chemistry , you get oxides of nitrogen out the exhaust pipe.So on the one hand an efficient engine will be running petrol / gasoline at 13 : 1 compression ratios , or diesel at 25 : 1 compression ratios , and polluting the crap out of everything.On the other hand , a " green " engine will be running petrol / gasoline at 9 : 1 compression ratios , or diesel at 17 : 1 , and wasting energy efficiency like an ice rink in Dubai.You ca n't have it both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As any (mechanical) engineer knows, to get an efficient internal combustion engine you want compression pressures as high as possible and combustion temperatures as high as possible (an oversimplification, to be sure) because an internal combustion engine is a heat engine, and the greater the temperature and pressure difference between the combustion event in the cylinder, and ambient conditions at the end of the exhaust system, the more efficient it is.UNFORTUNATELY, some three quarters of the gas that the internal combustion engine draws in from the atmosphere is Nitrogen, and when you expose Nitrogen to the high pressures and temperatures of a combustion chamber, what happens next is simple, and unavoidable, chemistry, you get oxides of nitrogen out the exhaust pipe.So on the one hand an efficient engine will be running petrol / gasoline at 13:1 compression ratios, or diesel at 25:1 compression ratios, and polluting the crap out of everything.On the other hand, a "green" engine will be running petrol / gasoline at 9:1 compression ratios, or diesel at 17:1, and wasting energy efficiency like an ice rink in Dubai.You can't have it both ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31417486</id>
	<title>Quite the Spanking Novelty, eh ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268165580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pogue (1930's), Pantone, GEET(1990's), plus a score of others in-between.</p><p>Next in the news : running cars on "new electrolysis" products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pogue ( 1930 's ) , Pantone , GEET ( 1990 's ) , plus a score of others in-between.Next in the news : running cars on " new electrolysis " products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pogue (1930's), Pantone, GEET(1990's), plus a score of others in-between.Next in the news : running cars on "new electrolysis" products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412936</id>
	<title>I'm no so sceptical</title>
	<author>Psychofreak</author>
	<datestamp>1268147160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a novel application of existing ideas.  Some of this technology is in use on diesel engines (compression ignition, direct injection, timing direct injection to time ignition) and heat regeneration is in use in all power plants, and some major industrial processes, a lot of ovens and forges use exhaust to preheat combustion air and fuel.</p><p>Heat regeneration is already used in cars through exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) technologies.</p><p>One of the larger losses in an engine is "pumping" or simply moving air through the engine for combustion, and exhaust out of the engine.  In the article they call it "throttling losses"</p><p>The catalyst can be as simple as a coating on the injector nozzle as it enters the chamber, partial oxidizing does sound dodgy though.</p><p>They are also comparing to a rather small vehicle, the Prius, so I think their numbers are plausible, not too sure about this going mainstream at this kind of efficiency though.  Automakers and oil companies will likely screw up the implementation, and lawmakers will regulate inefficiencies into existence, and the system will have to be proven safe and not a bomb on wheels, especially in the case of accidents.</p><p>Phil</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a novel application of existing ideas .
Some of this technology is in use on diesel engines ( compression ignition , direct injection , timing direct injection to time ignition ) and heat regeneration is in use in all power plants , and some major industrial processes , a lot of ovens and forges use exhaust to preheat combustion air and fuel.Heat regeneration is already used in cars through exhaust gas recirculation ( EGR ) technologies.One of the larger losses in an engine is " pumping " or simply moving air through the engine for combustion , and exhaust out of the engine .
In the article they call it " throttling losses " The catalyst can be as simple as a coating on the injector nozzle as it enters the chamber , partial oxidizing does sound dodgy though.They are also comparing to a rather small vehicle , the Prius , so I think their numbers are plausible , not too sure about this going mainstream at this kind of efficiency though .
Automakers and oil companies will likely screw up the implementation , and lawmakers will regulate inefficiencies into existence , and the system will have to be proven safe and not a bomb on wheels , especially in the case of accidents.Phil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a novel application of existing ideas.
Some of this technology is in use on diesel engines (compression ignition, direct injection, timing direct injection to time ignition) and heat regeneration is in use in all power plants, and some major industrial processes, a lot of ovens and forges use exhaust to preheat combustion air and fuel.Heat regeneration is already used in cars through exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) technologies.One of the larger losses in an engine is "pumping" or simply moving air through the engine for combustion, and exhaust out of the engine.
In the article they call it "throttling losses"The catalyst can be as simple as a coating on the injector nozzle as it enters the chamber, partial oxidizing does sound dodgy though.They are also comparing to a rather small vehicle, the Prius, so I think their numbers are plausible, not too sure about this going mainstream at this kind of efficiency though.
Automakers and oil companies will likely screw up the implementation, and lawmakers will regulate inefficiencies into existence, and the system will have to be proven safe and not a bomb on wheels, especially in the case of accidents.Phil</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412454</id>
	<title>oh boy!</title>
	<author>JackSpratts</author>
	<datestamp>1268144820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>just in time. my mr. fusion is out of beer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>just in time .
my mr. fusion is out of beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just in time.
my mr. fusion is out of beer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413520</id>
	<title>Re:Those "up to" words again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268149560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And once you add smog controls you might not get anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And once you add smog controls you might not get anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And once you add smog controls you might not get anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412776</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't solve the oil problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268146440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sustainable POPulation is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sustainable POPulation is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sustainable POPulation is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412578</id>
	<title>As a former mechanic, I have a few questions</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1268145360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much are replacement injectors using this technology going to cost?  How much are other various parts going to cost (wiring harness that connects to the injectors, etc.)?  How big will the heating and pressurizing mechanism be? (although based on the pic in TFA, it looks like it may piggy back right on the injector...which would raise the cost to replace them by a LOT)  How much would that cost to replace?  Would it be available only through the OEM company, or will other companies be able to build their own?</p><p>All things to think about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much are replacement injectors using this technology going to cost ?
How much are other various parts going to cost ( wiring harness that connects to the injectors , etc. ) ?
How big will the heating and pressurizing mechanism be ?
( although based on the pic in TFA , it looks like it may piggy back right on the injector...which would raise the cost to replace them by a LOT ) How much would that cost to replace ?
Would it be available only through the OEM company , or will other companies be able to build their own ? All things to think about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much are replacement injectors using this technology going to cost?
How much are other various parts going to cost (wiring harness that connects to the injectors, etc.)?
How big will the heating and pressurizing mechanism be?
(although based on the pic in TFA, it looks like it may piggy back right on the injector...which would raise the cost to replace them by a LOT)  How much would that cost to replace?
Would it be available only through the OEM company, or will other companies be able to build their own?All things to think about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31506642</id>
	<title>BSFC is a better measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268829300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Transonic keeps talking about fuel efficiency in miles per gallon. That is misleading on a number of fronts. The vehicle could be light weight, the test conditions could be extremely favorable, etc. Since we are only talking about engine efficiency, a better measure would be brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Transonic keeps talking about fuel efficiency in miles per gallon .
That is misleading on a number of fronts .
The vehicle could be light weight , the test conditions could be extremely favorable , etc .
Since we are only talking about engine efficiency , a better measure would be brake specific fuel consumption ( BSFC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Transonic keeps talking about fuel efficiency in miles per gallon.
That is misleading on a number of fronts.
The vehicle could be light weight, the test conditions could be extremely favorable, etc.
Since we are only talking about engine efficiency, a better measure would be brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416180</id>
	<title>Re:NOx and emissions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268159760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oops, there you go with reality again. Chemistry is a bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oops , there you go with reality again .
Chemistry is a bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oops, there you go with reality again.
Chemistry is a bitch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422546</id>
	<title>Re:NOx and emissions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268151180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might not be a problem because the combustion heat and pressure is no higher than a standard gas engine and in fact runs cooler because the piston and cylinder are cooler.  It is just the fuel as it is injected that is hot to initiate ignition.  Not necessarily the whole combustion process which may well generate less NOx.</p><p>But I'm just surmising the same as you are surmising the chance of higher NOx.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might not be a problem because the combustion heat and pressure is no higher than a standard gas engine and in fact runs cooler because the piston and cylinder are cooler .
It is just the fuel as it is injected that is hot to initiate ignition .
Not necessarily the whole combustion process which may well generate less NOx.But I 'm just surmising the same as you are surmising the chance of higher NOx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might not be a problem because the combustion heat and pressure is no higher than a standard gas engine and in fact runs cooler because the piston and cylinder are cooler.
It is just the fuel as it is injected that is hot to initiate ignition.
Not necessarily the whole combustion process which may well generate less NOx.But I'm just surmising the same as you are surmising the chance of higher NOx.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415500</id>
	<title>Re:NOx and emissions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268157060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NOx issue has already been solved by the Honda Insight (the original) with a special NOx catalytic converter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NOx issue has already been solved by the Honda Insight ( the original ) with a special NOx catalytic converter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NOx issue has already been solved by the Honda Insight (the original) with a special NOx catalytic converter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412850</id>
	<title>Re:If you post before this</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1268146740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh, but I'm sure when the technology never quite makes it to market, die hard conspiracy nuts will claim some Oil company bought the technology only to destroy it so they can sell more oil.</p></div><p>A lesser known fact is that most conspiracy nuts work for oil companies to discredit those who discover the real conspiracies.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/ducks</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , but I 'm sure when the technology never quite makes it to market , die hard conspiracy nuts will claim some Oil company bought the technology only to destroy it so they can sell more oil.A lesser known fact is that most conspiracy nuts work for oil companies to discredit those who discover the real conspiracies .
/ducks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, but I'm sure when the technology never quite makes it to market, die hard conspiracy nuts will claim some Oil company bought the technology only to destroy it so they can sell more oil.A lesser known fact is that most conspiracy nuts work for oil companies to discredit those who discover the real conspiracies.
/ducks
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413044</id>
	<title>Sounds like something else...</title>
	<author>sackvillian</author>
	<datestamp>1268147520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23156/?a=f" title="technologyreview.com" rel="nofollow">article</a> [technologyreview.com] describes a very similar process from a New York company that uses supercritical diesel fuel -- and they report much more sensible efficiency gains of up to 10\%.  They've only tested in a lab setting so far though.</p><p>I found the article because I was looking for the supercritical points of gasoline, which is a complex mixture of many different hydrocarbons, making the critical points very tricky to estimate.  Turns out they are 720K and 60Mpa, from the article above.  Their system achieves temperatures this high (almost 400 degrees higher than normal fuel system operations) using exhaust heat.  Given that higher temperatures mean improved efficiency, I'd buy the 10\% they propose -- though I remain <b>very</b> skeptical abut the 50\% proposed in this article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article [ technologyreview.com ] describes a very similar process from a New York company that uses supercritical diesel fuel -- and they report much more sensible efficiency gains of up to 10 \ % .
They 've only tested in a lab setting so far though.I found the article because I was looking for the supercritical points of gasoline , which is a complex mixture of many different hydrocarbons , making the critical points very tricky to estimate .
Turns out they are 720K and 60Mpa , from the article above .
Their system achieves temperatures this high ( almost 400 degrees higher than normal fuel system operations ) using exhaust heat .
Given that higher temperatures mean improved efficiency , I 'd buy the 10 \ % they propose -- though I remain very skeptical abut the 50 \ % proposed in this article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article [technologyreview.com] describes a very similar process from a New York company that uses supercritical diesel fuel -- and they report much more sensible efficiency gains of up to 10\%.
They've only tested in a lab setting so far though.I found the article because I was looking for the supercritical points of gasoline, which is a complex mixture of many different hydrocarbons, making the critical points very tricky to estimate.
Turns out they are 720K and 60Mpa, from the article above.
Their system achieves temperatures this high (almost 400 degrees higher than normal fuel system operations) using exhaust heat.
Given that higher temperatures mean improved efficiency, I'd buy the 10\% they propose -- though I remain very skeptical abut the 50\% proposed in this article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416546</id>
	<title>Re:I'm no so sceptical</title>
	<author>AdamThor</author>
	<datestamp>1268161260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The catalyst can be as simple as a coating on the injector nozzle as it enters the chamber, partial oxidizing does sound dodgy though.</i></p><p>Totally dodgy!  Fuel is treated?  Treated with what?  Turns out when you "treat" the fuel with some NOS you get more output?  You don't say!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The catalyst can be as simple as a coating on the injector nozzle as it enters the chamber , partial oxidizing does sound dodgy though.Totally dodgy !
Fuel is treated ?
Treated with what ?
Turns out when you " treat " the fuel with some NOS you get more output ?
You do n't say !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The catalyst can be as simple as a coating on the injector nozzle as it enters the chamber, partial oxidizing does sound dodgy though.Totally dodgy!
Fuel is treated?
Treated with what?
Turns out when you "treat" the fuel with some NOS you get more output?
You don't say!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413886</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268151300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted from that gasoline, because, well, physics is physics.</i></p><p>Skepticism is good, but you could have made the same statement about carburation back in the 1970s. But my '02 Concorde is as roomy as my old '74 Le Mans, almost as fast, and gets almost twice the gas mileage the Pontiac did. The secret to extracting more energy out of a gallon of gasoline is to send less of it out the tailpipe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted from that gasoline , because , well , physics is physics.Skepticism is good , but you could have made the same statement about carburation back in the 1970s .
But my '02 Concorde is as roomy as my old '74 Le Mans , almost as fast , and gets almost twice the gas mileage the Pontiac did .
The secret to extracting more energy out of a gallon of gasoline is to send less of it out the tailpipe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted from that gasoline, because, well, physics is physics.Skepticism is good, but you could have made the same statement about carburation back in the 1970s.
But my '02 Concorde is as roomy as my old '74 Le Mans, almost as fast, and gets almost twice the gas mileage the Pontiac did.
The secret to extracting more energy out of a gallon of gasoline is to send less of it out the tailpipe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412426</id>
	<title>This would seem like a great idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268144640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This puts it into a supercritical state that allows for very fast and clean combustion, which in turn decreases the amount of fuel needed to propel a vehicle."</p><p>Because as we know 33\% of petrol that you put into a car passes straight through the engine and into the exhaust, and.. oh wait</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This puts it into a supercritical state that allows for very fast and clean combustion , which in turn decreases the amount of fuel needed to propel a vehicle .
" Because as we know 33 \ % of petrol that you put into a car passes straight through the engine and into the exhaust , and.. oh wait</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This puts it into a supercritical state that allows for very fast and clean combustion, which in turn decreases the amount of fuel needed to propel a vehicle.
"Because as we know 33\% of petrol that you put into a car passes straight through the engine and into the exhaust, and.. oh wait</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414726</id>
	<title>Increase econmy 10-25\%</title>
	<author>dlmarti</author>
	<datestamp>1268154480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buy a manual transmission vehicle.
You get an automatic 2-5mpgs better, plus the initial cost and maintenance costs are significantly cheaper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy a manual transmission vehicle .
You get an automatic 2-5mpgs better , plus the initial cost and maintenance costs are significantly cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy a manual transmission vehicle.
You get an automatic 2-5mpgs better, plus the initial cost and maintenance costs are significantly cheaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412482</id>
	<title>Re:Not just "similar" to a diesel</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1268144940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, sounds exactly what it is.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Transonic's injection system varies from direct injection in two ways: it uses supercritical fluids and doesn't require a spark to ignite the fuel. The supercritical fluid mixes quickly with air when it's injected into the cylinder.</p></div><p>Not sure what is considered 'super critical' but diesel fuel under 180 MPa/26,000 psi is pretty super critical to me.</p><p><i>Once the fuel is injected into the piston, the heat and pressure are enough to cause the fuel to combust without a spark (similar to what happens in diesel engines), which also helps provide fast, uniform combustion. Ignition can be timed to happen just when the piston is reaching the optimal point, so it can convert as much of the energy in the gasoline into mechanical movement as possible, without wasting energy by heating up the combustion chamber walls, as happens in conventional technologies. The company has developed proprietary software that lets the system adjust the injection precisely depending on the load put on the engine. </i></p><p>So it sounds exactly like a diesel engine or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Volkswagen\_Group\_petrol\_engines#1.0\_R3\_12v\_TSI\_50-55kW" title="wikipedia.org">VW's TSI gasoline engine.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , sounds exactly what it is.Transonic 's injection system varies from direct injection in two ways : it uses supercritical fluids and does n't require a spark to ignite the fuel .
The supercritical fluid mixes quickly with air when it 's injected into the cylinder.Not sure what is considered 'super critical ' but diesel fuel under 180 MPa/26,000 psi is pretty super critical to me.Once the fuel is injected into the piston , the heat and pressure are enough to cause the fuel to combust without a spark ( similar to what happens in diesel engines ) , which also helps provide fast , uniform combustion .
Ignition can be timed to happen just when the piston is reaching the optimal point , so it can convert as much of the energy in the gasoline into mechanical movement as possible , without wasting energy by heating up the combustion chamber walls , as happens in conventional technologies .
The company has developed proprietary software that lets the system adjust the injection precisely depending on the load put on the engine .
So it sounds exactly like a diesel engine or VW 's TSI gasoline engine .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, sounds exactly what it is.Transonic's injection system varies from direct injection in two ways: it uses supercritical fluids and doesn't require a spark to ignite the fuel.
The supercritical fluid mixes quickly with air when it's injected into the cylinder.Not sure what is considered 'super critical' but diesel fuel under 180 MPa/26,000 psi is pretty super critical to me.Once the fuel is injected into the piston, the heat and pressure are enough to cause the fuel to combust without a spark (similar to what happens in diesel engines), which also helps provide fast, uniform combustion.
Ignition can be timed to happen just when the piston is reaching the optimal point, so it can convert as much of the energy in the gasoline into mechanical movement as possible, without wasting energy by heating up the combustion chamber walls, as happens in conventional technologies.
The company has developed proprietary software that lets the system adjust the injection precisely depending on the load put on the engine.
So it sounds exactly like a diesel engine or VW's TSI gasoline engine.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31421394</id>
	<title>Re:Not a Diesel</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1268140980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>People keep saying this is a diesel engine, but it is not. In a diesel engine, the air in the chamber is heated by compresssion up to something hot enough to ignite the fuel. In this design they are heating the fuel and pressurizing it before they inject it into the chamber, so that it turns to vapor as soon as it is injected into the chamber.</i> <br> <br>My understanding is that in a Diesel engine, compression causes detonation.  In this engine, compression causes detonation.  A "regular" diesel uses fuel that detonates more easily.  This engine uses fuel that is more resistant to detonation, and so is heated before injection to achieve the same effect.<br> <br>Every argument I've seen against this being a Diesel engine would also work to argue that any engine fitted with a glow plug is not a diesel engine.  This engine does nothing other than pre-heat the detonation-resistant fuel so it will ignite on compression.  How does that change the fact that it is an engine where fuel (cold or hot, who cares?) is introduced into an cylinder, compressed until detonation, then repeated?  That's Diesel, and this fits every definition that exists for it, unless you feel like arguing that glow plugs rescind the Diesel-ness of an engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People keep saying this is a diesel engine , but it is not .
In a diesel engine , the air in the chamber is heated by compresssion up to something hot enough to ignite the fuel .
In this design they are heating the fuel and pressurizing it before they inject it into the chamber , so that it turns to vapor as soon as it is injected into the chamber .
My understanding is that in a Diesel engine , compression causes detonation .
In this engine , compression causes detonation .
A " regular " diesel uses fuel that detonates more easily .
This engine uses fuel that is more resistant to detonation , and so is heated before injection to achieve the same effect .
Every argument I 've seen against this being a Diesel engine would also work to argue that any engine fitted with a glow plug is not a diesel engine .
This engine does nothing other than pre-heat the detonation-resistant fuel so it will ignite on compression .
How does that change the fact that it is an engine where fuel ( cold or hot , who cares ?
) is introduced into an cylinder , compressed until detonation , then repeated ?
That 's Diesel , and this fits every definition that exists for it , unless you feel like arguing that glow plugs rescind the Diesel-ness of an engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People keep saying this is a diesel engine, but it is not.
In a diesel engine, the air in the chamber is heated by compresssion up to something hot enough to ignite the fuel.
In this design they are heating the fuel and pressurizing it before they inject it into the chamber, so that it turns to vapor as soon as it is injected into the chamber.
My understanding is that in a Diesel engine, compression causes detonation.
In this engine, compression causes detonation.
A "regular" diesel uses fuel that detonates more easily.
This engine uses fuel that is more resistant to detonation, and so is heated before injection to achieve the same effect.
Every argument I've seen against this being a Diesel engine would also work to argue that any engine fitted with a glow plug is not a diesel engine.
This engine does nothing other than pre-heat the detonation-resistant fuel so it will ignite on compression.
How does that change the fact that it is an engine where fuel (cold or hot, who cares?
) is introduced into an cylinder, compressed until detonation, then repeated?
That's Diesel, and this fits every definition that exists for it, unless you feel like arguing that glow plugs rescind the Diesel-ness of an engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416326</id>
	<title>Root invention over 70 years old</title>
	<author>earlymon</author>
	<datestamp>1268160300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development.</p></div><p>Yeah.  Well, my father-in-law had a collection of Model T Fords - and one of them had a vaporizer plate on the engine block - I believe that was on his 1928 model (could have been the '24).</p><p>It was simple - and an installable option.  Engine block had a slight circular recess with some screw holes on either side.  One mounted a *small* tin plate (seemed like tin to me, much like those disposable ashtrays) via the screws - it had contours for the gas line lead-ins and -outs.</p><p>The gas was heated, vaporized, and pressurized - back in the '20s.</p><p>Substantiation here, see part 24 of Fig 1, the hot plate:</p><p><a href="http://old-carburetors.com/1927-Dykes/1927-Dykes-059.htm" title="old-carburetors.com">http://old-carburetors.com/1927-Dykes/1927-Dykes-059.htm</a> [old-carburetors.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber , says Mike Rocke , Transonic 's vice president of business development.Yeah .
Well , my father-in-law had a collection of Model T Fords - and one of them had a vaporizer plate on the engine block - I believe that was on his 1928 model ( could have been the '24 ) .It was simple - and an installable option .
Engine block had a slight circular recess with some screw holes on either side .
One mounted a * small * tin plate ( seemed like tin to me , much like those disposable ashtrays ) via the screws - it had contours for the gas line lead-ins and -outs.The gas was heated , vaporized , and pressurized - back in the '20s.Substantiation here , see part 24 of Fig 1 , the hot plate : http : //old-carburetors.com/1927-Dykes/1927-Dykes-059.htm [ old-carburetors.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development.Yeah.
Well, my father-in-law had a collection of Model T Fords - and one of them had a vaporizer plate on the engine block - I believe that was on his 1928 model (could have been the '24).It was simple - and an installable option.
Engine block had a slight circular recess with some screw holes on either side.
One mounted a *small* tin plate (seemed like tin to me, much like those disposable ashtrays) via the screws - it had contours for the gas line lead-ins and -outs.The gas was heated, vaporized, and pressurized - back in the '20s.Substantiation here, see part 24 of Fig 1, the hot plate:http://old-carburetors.com/1927-Dykes/1927-Dykes-059.htm [old-carburetors.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31428714</id>
	<title>This has been tried before ....</title>
	<author>NelsChristian</author>
	<datestamp>1268248440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do a search on "smokey yunic adiabatic".  He was working on this 10-20 years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do a search on " smokey yunic adiabatic " .
He was working on this 10-20 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do a search on "smokey yunic adiabatic".
He was working on this 10-20 years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368</id>
	<title>If you post before this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268144340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then you haven't read the damn article!</p><p>Get back to it!<br>It's not just a concept, they have a prototype too.<br>their test vehicle got 64 miles/gallon, that's around 27km/l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then you have n't read the damn article ! Get back to it ! It 's not just a concept , they have a prototype too.their test vehicle got 64 miles/gallon , that 's around 27km/l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then you haven't read the damn article!Get back to it!It's not just a concept, they have a prototype too.their test vehicle got 64 miles/gallon, that's around 27km/l</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31421926</id>
	<title>Silly Clowns</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268145060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can also boost your fuel economy by 50\% by making your car look like an aeroplane.<br>see http://www.free-energy.ws/transportation.html it is a good read</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can also boost your fuel economy by 50 \ % by making your car look like an aeroplane.see http : //www.free-energy.ws/transportation.html it is a good read</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can also boost your fuel economy by 50\% by making your car look like an aeroplane.see http://www.free-energy.ws/transportation.html it is a good read</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413502</id>
	<title>2fast4yuo</title>
	<author>idiotnot</author>
	<datestamp>1268149500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheq my turbo Diesel with nawssss!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheq my turbo Diesel with nawssss ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheq my turbo Diesel with nawssss!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414156</id>
	<title>Sounds like</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268152380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vapor-ware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vapor-ware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vapor-ware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422086</id>
	<title>Re:50\% efficient car engines? Now that's news!</title>
	<author>grrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1268146260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wondered the same thing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. really should strive for unambiguous and technical language, even when paraphrasing from TFA (no no don't laugh, that wasn't meant to be funny..)</p><p>I assumed it was 50\% improvement on the current efficiency. So if an engine is currently 13\% efficient (of some theoretical maximum), the new one would be 13*1.5 = 19.5\% efficient.</p><p>Or are they claiming 50\% efficiency of the theoretical maximum?</p><p>Mebbe I should RTFA, but I haven't had my second coffee yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wondered the same thing .
/. really should strive for unambiguous and technical language , even when paraphrasing from TFA ( no no do n't laugh , that was n't meant to be funny.. ) I assumed it was 50 \ % improvement on the current efficiency .
So if an engine is currently 13 \ % efficient ( of some theoretical maximum ) , the new one would be 13 * 1.5 = 19.5 \ % efficient.Or are they claiming 50 \ % efficiency of the theoretical maximum ? Mebbe I should RTFA , but I have n't had my second coffee yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wondered the same thing.
/. really should strive for unambiguous and technical language, even when paraphrasing from TFA (no no don't laugh, that wasn't meant to be funny..)I assumed it was 50\% improvement on the current efficiency.
So if an engine is currently 13\% efficient (of some theoretical maximum), the new one would be 13*1.5 = 19.5\% efficient.Or are they claiming 50\% efficiency of the theoretical maximum?Mebbe I should RTFA, but I haven't had my second coffee yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413526</id>
	<title>Re:magnets?</title>
	<author>Guysmiley777</author>
	<datestamp>1268149560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*BRAWNDO*</p><p>Now with more MOLECULES!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* BRAWNDO * Now with more MOLECULES !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*BRAWNDO*Now with more MOLECULES!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413990</id>
	<title>Diesel?</title>
	<author>invisik</author>
	<datestamp>1268151600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I naturally didn't RTFA but it sounds like a diesel to me.  Diesel engine already have greater economy from less volatile fuel.  The fuel itself isn't heated, the cylinders are heated via glow plugs at start, and then by the combustion itself afterwards.  More gas engine should go to direct injection first.</p><p>Or just skip all these "inventions" and keep refining the diesel engine.  The latest iteration of the Mercedes diesel is very smooth and incredibly quiet (rivaling gas engines in the same model car) with greater output.</p><p>-m</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I naturally did n't RTFA but it sounds like a diesel to me .
Diesel engine already have greater economy from less volatile fuel .
The fuel itself is n't heated , the cylinders are heated via glow plugs at start , and then by the combustion itself afterwards .
More gas engine should go to direct injection first.Or just skip all these " inventions " and keep refining the diesel engine .
The latest iteration of the Mercedes diesel is very smooth and incredibly quiet ( rivaling gas engines in the same model car ) with greater output.-m</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I naturally didn't RTFA but it sounds like a diesel to me.
Diesel engine already have greater economy from less volatile fuel.
The fuel itself isn't heated, the cylinders are heated via glow plugs at start, and then by the combustion itself afterwards.
More gas engine should go to direct injection first.Or just skip all these "inventions" and keep refining the diesel engine.
The latest iteration of the Mercedes diesel is very smooth and incredibly quiet (rivaling gas engines in the same model car) with greater output.-m</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413920</id>
	<title>1,000,000,000\% EFFICIENCY BOOST!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268151360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Listen, Jackson! I've got an invention that'll boost efficiency one billion percent! It's a loo-loo!!!<br>
<br>
Watch!!<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch\_popup?v=ojpGKCNgaLw#t=2m40s" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch\_popup?v=ojpGKCNgaLw#t=2m40s</a> [youtube.com]
<br> <br>
(Welp, back to the drawing board!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Listen , Jackson !
I 've got an invention that 'll boost efficiency one billion percent !
It 's a loo-loo ! ! !
Watch ! ! http : //www.youtube.com/watch \ _popup ? v = ojpGKCNgaLw # t = 2m40s [ youtube.com ] ( Welp , back to the drawing board !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Listen, Jackson!
I've got an invention that'll boost efficiency one billion percent!
It's a loo-loo!!!
Watch!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch\_popup?v=ojpGKCNgaLw#t=2m40s [youtube.com]
 
(Welp, back to the drawing board!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31419160</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1268129400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Or just skip all these "inventions" and keep refining the diesel engine.</p></div></blockquote><p>A few things come to mind.</p><p>1) AFAIK, we can't just stop making "unleaded" and start making twice as much "diesel" fuel.  The refining process isn't overwhelmingly precise and controllable.  If it was, we'd simply get rid of the bunker oil &amp; tar, and make more fuel.</p><p>2) The development of fuel cells which can operate directly on gasoline looks like the only possible way for combustion to move forward in the medium-term.  Already, fuel cell efficiency is about double ICEs, and well in excess of diesel engines as well (eg. 60\% versus 30\% for ICEs).  But they do NOT operate on diesel fuel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just skip all these " inventions " and keep refining the diesel engine.A few things come to mind.1 ) AFAIK , we ca n't just stop making " unleaded " and start making twice as much " diesel " fuel .
The refining process is n't overwhelmingly precise and controllable .
If it was , we 'd simply get rid of the bunker oil &amp; tar , and make more fuel.2 ) The development of fuel cells which can operate directly on gasoline looks like the only possible way for combustion to move forward in the medium-term .
Already , fuel cell efficiency is about double ICEs , and well in excess of diesel engines as well ( eg .
60 \ % versus 30 \ % for ICEs ) .
But they do NOT operate on diesel fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just skip all these "inventions" and keep refining the diesel engine.A few things come to mind.1) AFAIK, we can't just stop making "unleaded" and start making twice as much "diesel" fuel.
The refining process isn't overwhelmingly precise and controllable.
If it was, we'd simply get rid of the bunker oil &amp; tar, and make more fuel.2) The development of fuel cells which can operate directly on gasoline looks like the only possible way for combustion to move forward in the medium-term.
Already, fuel cell efficiency is about double ICEs, and well in excess of diesel engines as well (eg.
60\% versus 30\% for ICEs).
But they do NOT operate on diesel fuel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31421468</id>
	<title>burying the lead much?</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1268141340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unlike every single butt-scratching ape creature who posted nonsense above me, the way they inject it and how similar it is to existing technology or how much it supposedly won't work is unimportant.  The huuuuuuuuge thing that sticks out to anyone who actually knows something about cars is that somehow magically adding an oxidizer to gasoline is like adding NOS but more direct and that's like a 50\% boost in horsepower.  You know why rocket fuel burns so fast?  It contains its own oxygen!  If they can do that to gasoline, you need less oxygen to come in and burn it from the air intake.  There's still the same amount of air coming in though so the effect is it sends in more fuel and you get WAY more horsepower!  So how this could possibly help gas mileage I don't know but it will sure give a performance boost!<br>By the way, the way they phrase it makes it sound like the new system is more efficient because current engines don't burn all the gas completely.  That's bullshit!  If cars were spitting out gas left and right or losing 20\% of it straight into the catalytic converter, the car would never pass emmissions tests or have remotely good gas mileage.  Warming up the gas and chopping it into smaller pieces so it "burns better" is a big load of crap no matter what form they package it in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike every single butt-scratching ape creature who posted nonsense above me , the way they inject it and how similar it is to existing technology or how much it supposedly wo n't work is unimportant .
The huuuuuuuuge thing that sticks out to anyone who actually knows something about cars is that somehow magically adding an oxidizer to gasoline is like adding NOS but more direct and that 's like a 50 \ % boost in horsepower .
You know why rocket fuel burns so fast ?
It contains its own oxygen !
If they can do that to gasoline , you need less oxygen to come in and burn it from the air intake .
There 's still the same amount of air coming in though so the effect is it sends in more fuel and you get WAY more horsepower !
So how this could possibly help gas mileage I do n't know but it will sure give a performance boost ! By the way , the way they phrase it makes it sound like the new system is more efficient because current engines do n't burn all the gas completely .
That 's bullshit !
If cars were spitting out gas left and right or losing 20 \ % of it straight into the catalytic converter , the car would never pass emmissions tests or have remotely good gas mileage .
Warming up the gas and chopping it into smaller pieces so it " burns better " is a big load of crap no matter what form they package it in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike every single butt-scratching ape creature who posted nonsense above me, the way they inject it and how similar it is to existing technology or how much it supposedly won't work is unimportant.
The huuuuuuuuge thing that sticks out to anyone who actually knows something about cars is that somehow magically adding an oxidizer to gasoline is like adding NOS but more direct and that's like a 50\% boost in horsepower.
You know why rocket fuel burns so fast?
It contains its own oxygen!
If they can do that to gasoline, you need less oxygen to come in and burn it from the air intake.
There's still the same amount of air coming in though so the effect is it sends in more fuel and you get WAY more horsepower!
So how this could possibly help gas mileage I don't know but it will sure give a performance boost!By the way, the way they phrase it makes it sound like the new system is more efficient because current engines don't burn all the gas completely.
That's bullshit!
If cars were spitting out gas left and right or losing 20\% of it straight into the catalytic converter, the car would never pass emmissions tests or have remotely good gas mileage.
Warming up the gas and chopping it into smaller pieces so it "burns better" is a big load of crap no matter what form they package it in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412386</id>
	<title>Those "up to" words again.</title>
	<author>onion2k</author>
	<datestamp>1268144520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate "up to". Anything that claims an improvement of "up to" something is a essentially misleading. You won't get a real world improvement anywhere close.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate " up to " .
Anything that claims an improvement of " up to " something is a essentially misleading .
You wo n't get a real world improvement anywhere close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate "up to".
Anything that claims an improvement of "up to" something is a essentially misleading.
You won't get a real world improvement anywhere close.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412382</id>
	<title>Not just "similar" to a diesel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268144460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It <strong>is</strong> a diesel.
<br>
<br>
When is the two-cycle version coming out?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a diesel .
When is the two-cycle version coming out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a diesel.
When is the two-cycle version coming out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31426068</id>
	<title>Bi-measuralism.</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1268236380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use km/l all the time.  I live in Canada. The odometer is in km.  I pump l into my tank.  AND it's a simple numeric conversion (2.75 roughly) to multiply mpg to get km/l</p><p>l/100k has it's merits too.  I just haven't made that conversion in my mental processor yet. And converting back and forth in my head always requires division.</p><p>It's curious how I use different measuring systems in different domains.  People's height:  feet and inches.  Weight: pounds.  Fertilizer: kilograms.  Construction: 2x4's and 4x8's.  Plumbing: both.  Weather: Centigrade and mm. Cooking Farenheit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use km/l all the time .
I live in Canada .
The odometer is in km .
I pump l into my tank .
AND it 's a simple numeric conversion ( 2.75 roughly ) to multiply mpg to get km/ll/100k has it 's merits too .
I just have n't made that conversion in my mental processor yet .
And converting back and forth in my head always requires division.It 's curious how I use different measuring systems in different domains .
People 's height : feet and inches .
Weight : pounds .
Fertilizer : kilograms .
Construction : 2x4 's and 4x8 's .
Plumbing : both .
Weather : Centigrade and mm .
Cooking Farenheit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use km/l all the time.
I live in Canada.
The odometer is in km.
I pump l into my tank.
AND it's a simple numeric conversion (2.75 roughly) to multiply mpg to get km/ll/100k has it's merits too.
I just haven't made that conversion in my mental processor yet.
And converting back and forth in my head always requires division.It's curious how I use different measuring systems in different domains.
People's height:  feet and inches.
Weight: pounds.
Fertilizer: kilograms.
Construction: 2x4's and 4x8's.
Plumbing: both.
Weather: Centigrade and mm.
Cooking Farenheit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412656</id>
	<title>Not a Diesel</title>
	<author>Fantom42</author>
	<datestamp>1268145840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People keep saying this is a diesel engine, but it is not.  In a diesel engine, the air in the chamber is heated by compresssion up to something hot enough to ignite the fuel.  In this design they are heating the fuel and pressurizing it before they inject it into the chamber, so that it turns to vapor as soon as it is injected into the chamber.  Someone seemed to be making fun of the term 'supercritical' but that is the word for vapor that has completely transformed from a liquid and has excess internal energy.  This is very different from spraying the gas with an atomizer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People keep saying this is a diesel engine , but it is not .
In a diesel engine , the air in the chamber is heated by compresssion up to something hot enough to ignite the fuel .
In this design they are heating the fuel and pressurizing it before they inject it into the chamber , so that it turns to vapor as soon as it is injected into the chamber .
Someone seemed to be making fun of the term 'supercritical ' but that is the word for vapor that has completely transformed from a liquid and has excess internal energy .
This is very different from spraying the gas with an atomizer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People keep saying this is a diesel engine, but it is not.
In a diesel engine, the air in the chamber is heated by compresssion up to something hot enough to ignite the fuel.
In this design they are heating the fuel and pressurizing it before they inject it into the chamber, so that it turns to vapor as soon as it is injected into the chamber.
Someone seemed to be making fun of the term 'supercritical' but that is the word for vapor that has completely transformed from a liquid and has excess internal energy.
This is very different from spraying the gas with an atomizer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412550</id>
	<title>Is it still.... after....</title>
	<author>zerospeaks</author>
	<datestamp>1268145240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it still 50\% more efficient, after you add in the energy required to "heat and pressurize and treat" the fuel?

All of that must be factored into the efficiency of an energy producing engine.
If it is indeed true that they have gotten 50\% more efficiency, then that would put the internal combustion engine (which has an average of 14\% efficiency) to 21\% efficiency. Wind turbines are 33\%.

I am still amazed at the overwhelming use of the internal combustion engine.
The only reason why is because for so long oil was so cheap the engines could afford to be inefficient.

Well, those days are over my friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it still 50 \ % more efficient , after you add in the energy required to " heat and pressurize and treat " the fuel ?
All of that must be factored into the efficiency of an energy producing engine .
If it is indeed true that they have gotten 50 \ % more efficiency , then that would put the internal combustion engine ( which has an average of 14 \ % efficiency ) to 21 \ % efficiency .
Wind turbines are 33 \ % .
I am still amazed at the overwhelming use of the internal combustion engine .
The only reason why is because for so long oil was so cheap the engines could afford to be inefficient .
Well , those days are over my friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it still 50\% more efficient, after you add in the energy required to "heat and pressurize and treat" the fuel?
All of that must be factored into the efficiency of an energy producing engine.
If it is indeed true that they have gotten 50\% more efficiency, then that would put the internal combustion engine (which has an average of 14\% efficiency) to 21\% efficiency.
Wind turbines are 33\%.
I am still amazed at the overwhelming use of the internal combustion engine.
The only reason why is because for so long oil was so cheap the engines could afford to be inefficient.
Well, those days are over my friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412402</id>
	<title>Let me have doubts...</title>
	<author>courteaudotbiz</author>
	<datestamp>1268144580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me have some doubts about anything that boasts more than 10\% economy. All those fuel saving devices are usually scams.
<br> <br>
I'd like it to be real, but please, have some critical thought before posting a story like this...
<br> <br>
No, didn't RTFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me have some doubts about anything that boasts more than 10 \ % economy .
All those fuel saving devices are usually scams .
I 'd like it to be real , but please , have some critical thought before posting a story like this.. . No , did n't RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me have some doubts about anything that boasts more than 10\% economy.
All those fuel saving devices are usually scams.
I'd like it to be real, but please, have some critical thought before posting a story like this...
 
No, didn't RTFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415660</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>bkaul01</author>
	<datestamp>1268157780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modern gasoline engines running at their peak thermal efficiency points are at about 35\%.  Diesels are typically in the 40\% range.  But those thermal efficiency numbers are a bit tricky<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's not even theoretically possible to get any work out of an engine using a thermodynamic cycle that's 100\% efficient - the ideal Carnot cycle would be on the order of 70-80\% across the same temperature difference.  In the real world, something on the order of 50\% thermal efficiency is probably attainable.  Right now, we're working to push Diesels towards 45\%, and it's requiring things like waste heat recovery systems - running a bottoming cycle to recover some of the wasted exhaust energy.  There are a variety of more advanced cycles and combustion modes being actively researched too.</p><p>Generally speaking, a gasoline engine's peak efficiency is achieved when it's wide-open and running at peak load.  At other operating conditions, the efficiency is lower due to a variety of factors.  One of the ways we're looking at improving low-load operation is by using what's called HCCI (homogeneous charge, compression ignition) combustion - like diesel, compression ignition is used, but like gasoline engines, the fuel and air are premixed.  It sounds like that's what they're probably using here, with the supercritical injection being used to help enhance and control the ignition process (a big difficulty with HCCI).</p><p>I don't buy that they could increase the peak thermal efficiency by anywhere near 50\%, or that they could increase the thermal efficiency at a given operating condition by that much through supercritical injection alone.  If they're comparing HCCI to traditional stoichiometric SI combustion, though, it could get close to that at low-load points where the throttled SI engine is at its worst efficiency points.  The supercritical injection isn't the direct cause of that gain, but an enabling technology to help facilitate HCCI operation.  All else being equal (i.e. same combustion regimes, etc.), the injection technology could only have an impact on the fuel/air mixing and thus the combustion efficiency (i.e. how much of the fuel is burned completely), which is already well over 90\%; there's just not much room for improvement there.</p><p>Even if it doesn't increase the peak thermal efficiency of the engine at all, though, it could make a significant difference in vehicle fuel economy by increasing the efficiency at low-load, off-peak conditions.  Most of the FTP and NEDC drive cycles (US and Europe, respectively) are at low speed conditions, with quite a bit of idling and cruising, but very little hard acceleration.  Increasing the low-load efficiency of the engine will have a disproportionate effect even if the peak efficiency remains unaffected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern gasoline engines running at their peak thermal efficiency points are at about 35 \ % .
Diesels are typically in the 40 \ % range .
But those thermal efficiency numbers are a bit tricky ... it 's not even theoretically possible to get any work out of an engine using a thermodynamic cycle that 's 100 \ % efficient - the ideal Carnot cycle would be on the order of 70-80 \ % across the same temperature difference .
In the real world , something on the order of 50 \ % thermal efficiency is probably attainable .
Right now , we 're working to push Diesels towards 45 \ % , and it 's requiring things like waste heat recovery systems - running a bottoming cycle to recover some of the wasted exhaust energy .
There are a variety of more advanced cycles and combustion modes being actively researched too.Generally speaking , a gasoline engine 's peak efficiency is achieved when it 's wide-open and running at peak load .
At other operating conditions , the efficiency is lower due to a variety of factors .
One of the ways we 're looking at improving low-load operation is by using what 's called HCCI ( homogeneous charge , compression ignition ) combustion - like diesel , compression ignition is used , but like gasoline engines , the fuel and air are premixed .
It sounds like that 's what they 're probably using here , with the supercritical injection being used to help enhance and control the ignition process ( a big difficulty with HCCI ) .I do n't buy that they could increase the peak thermal efficiency by anywhere near 50 \ % , or that they could increase the thermal efficiency at a given operating condition by that much through supercritical injection alone .
If they 're comparing HCCI to traditional stoichiometric SI combustion , though , it could get close to that at low-load points where the throttled SI engine is at its worst efficiency points .
The supercritical injection is n't the direct cause of that gain , but an enabling technology to help facilitate HCCI operation .
All else being equal ( i.e .
same combustion regimes , etc .
) , the injection technology could only have an impact on the fuel/air mixing and thus the combustion efficiency ( i.e .
how much of the fuel is burned completely ) , which is already well over 90 \ % ; there 's just not much room for improvement there.Even if it does n't increase the peak thermal efficiency of the engine at all , though , it could make a significant difference in vehicle fuel economy by increasing the efficiency at low-load , off-peak conditions .
Most of the FTP and NEDC drive cycles ( US and Europe , respectively ) are at low speed conditions , with quite a bit of idling and cruising , but very little hard acceleration .
Increasing the low-load efficiency of the engine will have a disproportionate effect even if the peak efficiency remains unaffected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern gasoline engines running at their peak thermal efficiency points are at about 35\%.
Diesels are typically in the 40\% range.
But those thermal efficiency numbers are a bit tricky ... it's not even theoretically possible to get any work out of an engine using a thermodynamic cycle that's 100\% efficient - the ideal Carnot cycle would be on the order of 70-80\% across the same temperature difference.
In the real world, something on the order of 50\% thermal efficiency is probably attainable.
Right now, we're working to push Diesels towards 45\%, and it's requiring things like waste heat recovery systems - running a bottoming cycle to recover some of the wasted exhaust energy.
There are a variety of more advanced cycles and combustion modes being actively researched too.Generally speaking, a gasoline engine's peak efficiency is achieved when it's wide-open and running at peak load.
At other operating conditions, the efficiency is lower due to a variety of factors.
One of the ways we're looking at improving low-load operation is by using what's called HCCI (homogeneous charge, compression ignition) combustion - like diesel, compression ignition is used, but like gasoline engines, the fuel and air are premixed.
It sounds like that's what they're probably using here, with the supercritical injection being used to help enhance and control the ignition process (a big difficulty with HCCI).I don't buy that they could increase the peak thermal efficiency by anywhere near 50\%, or that they could increase the thermal efficiency at a given operating condition by that much through supercritical injection alone.
If they're comparing HCCI to traditional stoichiometric SI combustion, though, it could get close to that at low-load points where the throttled SI engine is at its worst efficiency points.
The supercritical injection isn't the direct cause of that gain, but an enabling technology to help facilitate HCCI operation.
All else being equal (i.e.
same combustion regimes, etc.
), the injection technology could only have an impact on the fuel/air mixing and thus the combustion efficiency (i.e.
how much of the fuel is burned completely), which is already well over 90\%; there's just not much room for improvement there.Even if it doesn't increase the peak thermal efficiency of the engine at all, though, it could make a significant difference in vehicle fuel economy by increasing the efficiency at low-load, off-peak conditions.
Most of the FTP and NEDC drive cycles (US and Europe, respectively) are at low speed conditions, with quite a bit of idling and cruising, but very little hard acceleration.
Increasing the low-load efficiency of the engine will have a disproportionate effect even if the peak efficiency remains unaffected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31420336</id>
	<title>This idea was done already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268134620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to post earlier, but it did not stick...</p><p>The only think moderately rare is the hot vapor fuel idea on a diesel, which was done in the '80s. I think GM bought the technology and shelved it - business/marketing IDIOTS! Everything else is commonplace: direct injection (increased in popularity in the '90s, especially in european models due to the increased emissions, but you see more and more here in the US), electronic control based on engine load (EFI, welcome to the 1970s and present day), turbocharging (welcome to the 1920s).</p><p><a href="http://www.legendarycollectorcars.com/featured-vehicles/other-feature-cars/smokey-yunicks-hot-vapor-fiero-51-mpg-and-0-60-in-less-than-6-seconds-see-and-hear-it-run-in-our-exclusive-video/" title="legendaryc...orcars.com" rel="nofollow">Smokey's Hot Vapor Fiero</a> [legendaryc...orcars.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to post earlier , but it did not stick...The only think moderately rare is the hot vapor fuel idea on a diesel , which was done in the '80s .
I think GM bought the technology and shelved it - business/marketing IDIOTS !
Everything else is commonplace : direct injection ( increased in popularity in the '90s , especially in european models due to the increased emissions , but you see more and more here in the US ) , electronic control based on engine load ( EFI , welcome to the 1970s and present day ) , turbocharging ( welcome to the 1920s ) .Smokey 's Hot Vapor Fiero [ legendaryc...orcars.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to post earlier, but it did not stick...The only think moderately rare is the hot vapor fuel idea on a diesel, which was done in the '80s.
I think GM bought the technology and shelved it - business/marketing IDIOTS!
Everything else is commonplace: direct injection (increased in popularity in the '90s, especially in european models due to the increased emissions, but you see more and more here in the US), electronic control based on engine load (EFI, welcome to the 1970s and present day), turbocharging (welcome to the 1920s).Smokey's Hot Vapor Fiero [legendaryc...orcars.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31417060</id>
	<title>Re:Not just "similar" to a diesel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268163720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not exactly like the TSI engine. The TSI does have spark plugs. The TSI is basically a normal direct injected petrol engine which is turbocharged.<br>The top spec 1.4 TSI is a twincharger which uses both a mechanical compressor and a turbocharger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not exactly like the TSI engine .
The TSI does have spark plugs .
The TSI is basically a normal direct injected petrol engine which is turbocharged.The top spec 1.4 TSI is a twincharger which uses both a mechanical compressor and a turbocharger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not exactly like the TSI engine.
The TSI does have spark plugs.
The TSI is basically a normal direct injected petrol engine which is turbocharged.The top spec 1.4 TSI is a twincharger which uses both a mechanical compressor and a turbocharger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413508</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1268149500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted from that gasoline, because, well, physics is physics."</i>
<br> <br>
Agreed, but the real question is how are they testing?  Downhill with a tailwind?  <b>Anyone can achieve 98mpg given the right conditions</b> (downhill in neutral), and since they don't come out and say "we achieved 98mpg using the same technique as <a href="http://www.fueleconomy.gov/" title="fueleconomy.gov">fueleconomy.gov"</a> [fueleconomy.gov] it sounds like BS.
<br> <br>
Another reason this sounds like BS:  billions of dollars are being invested to meet the <a href="http://green.autoblog.com/2007/12/18/its-official-congress-passes-35-mpg-cafe-standard/" title="autoblog.com">35mpg CAFE standard by 2020</a> [autoblog.com].  When Congress was talking about <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30810514/ns/us\_news-environment/page/2/" title="msn.com">requiring 32mpg by 2015 it was estimated it would cost $47 billion dollars</a> [msn.com] to reach that goal:
<i>"For the auto industry, it will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion."</i>
<br> <br>
So a magic fuel injector that achieves 98 mpg would literally be worth billions of dollars, not to mention <a href="http://www.xprize.org/news/automotive-x-prize-seeks-100-mpg-car" title="xprize.org">win the xprize</a> [xprize.org] and <a href="http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/" title="progressiv...xprize.org">$10 million dollars</a> [progressiv...xprize.org].  Any engineer that designed this could join any auto manufacture and write his own ticket.  The idea that a startup in California just happened across this technology outdoing the greatest minds in GM, Toyota, Honda, and the academic community just sounds like snake oil, just like the <a href="http://www.clickorlando.com/news/16488151/detail.html" title="clickorlando.com">car that runs on water</a> [clickorlando.com], <a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=37914" title="breitbart.tv">130mpg car</a> [breitbart.tv], <a href="http://www.toledoonthemove.com/news/news\_story.aspx?id=153939" title="toledoonthemove.com">110mpg 0-60 in 3 seconds Mustang</a> [toledoonthemove.com].  If any of these technologies were real GM or Honda would be announcing it or at the very least they'd be xprize competitors.
<br> <br>
Have we forgotten the <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01/30/1655239/Perpetual-Motion-DeLorean-Scammers-Face-26M-Judgment" title="slashdot.org">Perpetual Motion DeLorean scammers already?</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted from that gasoline , because , well , physics is physics .
" Agreed , but the real question is how are they testing ?
Downhill with a tailwind ?
Anyone can achieve 98mpg given the right conditions ( downhill in neutral ) , and since they do n't come out and say " we achieved 98mpg using the same technique as fueleconomy.gov " [ fueleconomy.gov ] it sounds like BS .
Another reason this sounds like BS : billions of dollars are being invested to meet the 35mpg CAFE standard by 2020 [ autoblog.com ] .
When Congress was talking about requiring 32mpg by 2015 it was estimated it would cost $ 47 billion dollars [ msn.com ] to reach that goal : " For the auto industry , it will be costly ; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $ 47 billion .
" So a magic fuel injector that achieves 98 mpg would literally be worth billions of dollars , not to mention win the xprize [ xprize.org ] and $ 10 million dollars [ progressiv...xprize.org ] .
Any engineer that designed this could join any auto manufacture and write his own ticket .
The idea that a startup in California just happened across this technology outdoing the greatest minds in GM , Toyota , Honda , and the academic community just sounds like snake oil , just like the car that runs on water [ clickorlando.com ] , 130mpg car [ breitbart.tv ] , 110mpg 0-60 in 3 seconds Mustang [ toledoonthemove.com ] .
If any of these technologies were real GM or Honda would be announcing it or at the very least they 'd be xprize competitors .
Have we forgotten the Perpetual Motion DeLorean scammers already ?
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted from that gasoline, because, well, physics is physics.
"
 
Agreed, but the real question is how are they testing?
Downhill with a tailwind?
Anyone can achieve 98mpg given the right conditions (downhill in neutral), and since they don't come out and say "we achieved 98mpg using the same technique as fueleconomy.gov" [fueleconomy.gov] it sounds like BS.
Another reason this sounds like BS:  billions of dollars are being invested to meet the 35mpg CAFE standard by 2020 [autoblog.com].
When Congress was talking about requiring 32mpg by 2015 it was estimated it would cost $47 billion dollars [msn.com] to reach that goal:
"For the auto industry, it will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion.
"
 
So a magic fuel injector that achieves 98 mpg would literally be worth billions of dollars, not to mention win the xprize [xprize.org] and $10 million dollars [progressiv...xprize.org].
Any engineer that designed this could join any auto manufacture and write his own ticket.
The idea that a startup in California just happened across this technology outdoing the greatest minds in GM, Toyota, Honda, and the academic community just sounds like snake oil, just like the car that runs on water [clickorlando.com], 130mpg car [breitbart.tv], 110mpg 0-60 in 3 seconds Mustang [toledoonthemove.com].
If any of these technologies were real GM or Honda would be announcing it or at the very least they'd be xprize competitors.
Have we forgotten the Perpetual Motion DeLorean scammers already?
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415340</id>
	<title>Re:Those "up to" words again.</title>
	<author>M. Baranczak</author>
	<datestamp>1268156520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Up to 50 percent or more!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Up to 50 percent or more !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Up to 50 percent or more!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415432</id>
	<title>computer analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268156820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually someone throws down a car analogy... what happens here... a computer analogy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually someone throws down a car analogy... what happens here... a computer analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually someone throws down a car analogy... what happens here... a computer analogy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422202</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>roger gregory spelle</author>
	<datestamp>1268147640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>l/100 km == gal/ 235 mi<br>If you drive 12,220 miles per year (a bit less than American average), you can read it as gallons per week.<br>This allows much better comparison of gallons or $ saved, and is a much better measure of "greenness".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>l/100 km = = gal/ 235 miIf you drive 12,220 miles per year ( a bit less than American average ) , you can read it as gallons per week.This allows much better comparison of gallons or $ saved , and is a much better measure of " greenness " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>l/100 km == gal/ 235 miIf you drive 12,220 miles per year (a bit less than American average), you can read it as gallons per week.This allows much better comparison of gallons or $ saved, and is a much better measure of "greenness".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412712</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't solve the oil problem</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1268146080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>New combustion engines aren't the future; renewable energy is.</p></div><p>Like biodiesel/biofuel, which gets leaps and bounds closer to break-even as fuel efficiency increases?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>New combustion engines are n't the future ; renewable energy is.Like biodiesel/biofuel , which gets leaps and bounds closer to break-even as fuel efficiency increases ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New combustion engines aren't the future; renewable energy is.Like biodiesel/biofuel, which gets leaps and bounds closer to break-even as fuel efficiency increases?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413642</id>
	<title>Re:Those "up to" words again.</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1268150100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent point.  Instead of "up to", they should make claims like "at least".  Then that's substantial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent point .
Instead of " up to " , they should make claims like " at least " .
Then that 's substantial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent point.
Instead of "up to", they should make claims like "at least".
Then that's substantial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416144</id>
	<title>This is nothing like a diesel.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268159580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is nothing like a diesel.
<p>
In a diesel, the fuel is injected into the cylinder.
</p><p>
FTFA:  "Once the fuel is injected into the piston, the heat and pressure are enough to cause the fuel to combust without a spark"
</p><p>
No, what we have here is a true revolution.  This company is only one step away from screwing spark plugs directly into the fuel tank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nothing like a diesel .
In a diesel , the fuel is injected into the cylinder .
FTFA : " Once the fuel is injected into the piston , the heat and pressure are enough to cause the fuel to combust without a spark " No , what we have here is a true revolution .
This company is only one step away from screwing spark plugs directly into the fuel tank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nothing like a diesel.
In a diesel, the fuel is injected into the cylinder.
FTFA:  "Once the fuel is injected into the piston, the heat and pressure are enough to cause the fuel to combust without a spark"

No, what we have here is a true revolution.
This company is only one step away from screwing spark plugs directly into the fuel tank.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413882</id>
	<title>Dopey, cockeyed decision making</title>
	<author>quantumpineal</author>
	<datestamp>1268151240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess we'll have to wait ten years for this to reach the market then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess we 'll have to wait ten years for this to reach the market then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess we'll have to wait ten years for this to reach the market then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416316</id>
	<title>I Doubt It!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268160300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      This sounds like nonsense to me. If they claimed a 3\% increase I would have some hope but a 50\% breakthrough sounds like a snake oil sale to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like nonsense to me .
If they claimed a 3 \ % increase I would have some hope but a 50 \ % breakthrough sounds like a snake oil sale to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      This sounds like nonsense to me.
If they claimed a 3\% increase I would have some hope but a 50\% breakthrough sounds like a snake oil sale to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416698</id>
	<title>Oxidize?</title>
	<author>Sitnalta</author>
	<datestamp>1268162100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The company also treats the gasoline with a catalyst that 'activates' it, partially oxidizing it to enhance combustion."</p><p>That's how you can tell this is BS. Technobabble coupled with taking advantage of public scientific illiteracy. Oxidizing gasoline is what the combustion chamber does. If you oxidize gas outside of the combustion chamber, you get a big fiery explosion.</p><p>It is possible to "Oxygenate" gasoline, which is just essentially dissolving Oxygen into gas like Carbon Dioxide into soda. But we already do this at all gas stations to cut down on emissions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The company also treats the gasoline with a catalyst that 'activates ' it , partially oxidizing it to enhance combustion .
" That 's how you can tell this is BS .
Technobabble coupled with taking advantage of public scientific illiteracy .
Oxidizing gasoline is what the combustion chamber does .
If you oxidize gas outside of the combustion chamber , you get a big fiery explosion.It is possible to " Oxygenate " gasoline , which is just essentially dissolving Oxygen into gas like Carbon Dioxide into soda .
But we already do this at all gas stations to cut down on emissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The company also treats the gasoline with a catalyst that 'activates' it, partially oxidizing it to enhance combustion.
"That's how you can tell this is BS.
Technobabble coupled with taking advantage of public scientific illiteracy.
Oxidizing gasoline is what the combustion chamber does.
If you oxidize gas outside of the combustion chamber, you get a big fiery explosion.It is possible to "Oxygenate" gasoline, which is just essentially dissolving Oxygen into gas like Carbon Dioxide into soda.
But we already do this at all gas stations to cut down on emissions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412838</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Kotten</author>
	<datestamp>1268146740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted...</p></div> </blockquote><p>
They claimed 50\% increase of efficiency.</p><blockquote><div><p>...the alternative would be that conventional engines were spewing out half the gas unburned. Which just isn't the case.</p></div></blockquote><p>The efficiency of combustion engines are ~20\% so you could say that more than half is lost (80\% actually). An increase with 50\% would but it in the 30\% range which seems reasonable to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted.. . They claimed 50 \ % increase of efficiency....the alternative would be that conventional engines were spewing out half the gas unburned .
Which just is n't the case.The efficiency of combustion engines are ~ 20 \ % so you could say that more than half is lost ( 80 \ % actually ) .
An increase with 50 \ % would but it in the 30 \ % range which seems reasonable to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted... 
They claimed 50\% increase of efficiency....the alternative would be that conventional engines were spewing out half the gas unburned.
Which just isn't the case.The efficiency of combustion engines are ~20\% so you could say that more than half is lost (80\% actually).
An increase with 50\% would but it in the 30\% range which seems reasonable to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413912</id>
	<title>oxidizing ?</title>
	<author>simoncrute</author>
	<datestamp>1268151360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The company also treats the gasoline with a catalyst that 'activates' it, partially oxidizing it to enhance combustion."</i></p><p>Doesn't oxidizing mean burning it ?<br>So they make it better by half buring it already...</p><p>Hummm....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The company also treats the gasoline with a catalyst that 'activates ' it , partially oxidizing it to enhance combustion .
" Does n't oxidizing mean burning it ? So they make it better by half buring it already...Hummm... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company also treats the gasoline with a catalyst that 'activates' it, partially oxidizing it to enhance combustion.
"Doesn't oxidizing mean burning it ?So they make it better by half buring it already...Hummm....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412354</id>
	<title>Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268144220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.</p><p>INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.<br>You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.</p><p>CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER<br>Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat</p><p>HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.</p><p>FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.</p><p>MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.<br>Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger !
If handled properly , your apeman will give years of valuable , if reluctant , service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model .
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration , i.e .
chained together .
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it , and do n't even think about taking that chain off , ever .
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them .
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud .
House niggers work best as standalone units , but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape .
At this stage , your nigger can also be given a name .
Most owners use the same names over and over , since niggers become confused by too much data .
Rufus , Rastus , Remus , Toby , Carslisle , Carlton , Hey-You ! -Yes-you ! , Yeller , Blackstar , and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger .
If your nigger is a ho , it should be called Latrelle , L'Tanya , or Jemima .
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke .
Pearl , Blossom , and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes .
These names go straight over your nigger 's head , by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error , your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords .
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - " muh dick " being the most popular .
However , others make barking , yelping , yapping noises and appear to be in some pain , so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger 's tongue .
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least , you wo n't hear it complaining anywhere near as much .
Niggers have nothing interesting to say , anyway .
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons ( yours , mine , and that of women , not the nigger 's ) .
This is strongly recommended , and frankly , it 's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars .
Make sure , however , that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through .
The rule of thumb is , four niggers per square yard of cage .
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers .
You can site a nigger cage anywhere , even on soft ground .
Do n't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage .
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they 're not about to now .
In any case , your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape .
As long as the free food holds out , your nigger is living better than it did in Africa , so it will stay put .
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage , as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken , corn bread , and watermelon .
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly does n't deserve it .
Instead , feed it on porridge with salt , and creek water .
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields , other niggers , etc .
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat , but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day .
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer , since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives .
He reports he does n't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result .
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work , since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained .
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton .
You really would .
Coffee beans ?
Do n't ask .
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very , very averse to work of any kind .
The nigger 's most</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger!
If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model.
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e.
chained together.
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever.
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them.
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud.
House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape.
At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name.
Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data.
Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger.
If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima.
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke.
Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes.
These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords.
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular.
However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue.
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much.
Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway.
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's).
This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars.
Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through.
The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage.
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers.
You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground.
Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage.
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now.
In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape.
As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put.
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon.
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it.
Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water.
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc.
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day.
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives.
He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result.
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained.
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton.
You really would.
Coffee beans?
Don't ask.
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind.
The nigger's most</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31430630</id>
	<title>Old skool</title>
	<author>mhbarber</author>
	<datestamp>1268214000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I looked through a container ship engine room about 20 years ago, they heated the "fuel"; they use the cheapest fuel, it's like tar, has to be heated first.

isn't good efficiency all about friction (and heat)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked through a container ship engine room about 20 years ago , they heated the " fuel " ; they use the cheapest fuel , it 's like tar , has to be heated first .
is n't good efficiency all about friction ( and heat )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked through a container ship engine room about 20 years ago, they heated the "fuel"; they use the cheapest fuel, it's like tar, has to be heated first.
isn't good efficiency all about friction (and heat)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414282</id>
	<title>'activating' gasoline</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1268152740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would it be surprising to so many people if this worked? To a layman, it might not make sense that inflating your tires (or something else along those lines) would increase gas efficiency. This is the same type of thing: significantly more complex, but still based on fairly sound basis.</p><p>Consider: an engine runs better when it's warmer, many (the majority) people in the US and Europe live in a 'cold' climate during half the year, and<br>
&nbsp; many people go for 'short drives'. If you're preheating the fuel, it'll reduce a significant amount of energy loss due to the engine having to get warm before it can warm the fuel.</p><p>Additionally, pressurizing it (more than it's being pressurized already -think of how vehicle performance decreases when your fuel pump is malfunctioning or the filter need replacement, reducing pressure) and feeding it through a smaller injector would, I suspect, result in better performance. Higher pressure = better/quicker dispersal from the injector. (Also, I seem to recall that diesel is pressurized fairly highly before being injected, but I'm not certain.)</p><p>I've got an "HHO booster" in my 2000 Focus. No, I'm not seeing the 50\% fuel economy improvements - but I am seeing improvements. I get about 15\% better fuel economy during the fall and spring, and almost 20\% better during the summer if I'm driving (my wife likes the AC on, silly her). The water freezes during the winter and we don't take road trips then, giving it a time to melt, so I disconnect it then.</p><p>I've got a friend who's uncle is a</p><p>As for the fuel additive... possibly. Consider how much processing (and mutilation) is done to our fuels now to come in line with EPA requirements: if they're putting in an additive which increases the octane or something like that, it's quite possibly effective. I know some vehicles perform significantly differently when they're using (say) 87 vs. 89 or 89 vs. 91 octane gas.</p><p>I've got a friend who's uncle worked on microwave technologies before he retired. This uncle was a bit of an eccentric, but he was also really, really smart (whether that has bearing on this topic or not, I couldn't say). His claim was he was getting 150-180mpg - an offhand comment, mind you - in an F150 truck by bombardment of the fuel line with microwaves (iirc). That same friend has a 6cyl Kia which he will regularly get 50mpg in on road trips (through the local hilly terrain using an HHO booster), and he's been doing it for 6 years.</p><p>In high school, I knew an older recluse - he lived on an old farm by himself and went to town maybe once a month for "supplies". He's occasionally come over to socialize. He had a 1979 F150 (something like that) which he'd put a 4BT Cummins in and a 12 speed manual transmission in it. He ran it as a greasel, and he would get about 70mpg on road trips to visit family on the other side of the state.</p><p>Hell, in a pretty plane-jane 2 ton 1985 Blazer, a non-turbo 5.8 Detroit will get 23mpg highway without much more than basic maintenance. That's better than many smaller, more aerodynamic cars.</p><p>All told, some of these fuel improvement techniques/technologies work. I've seen them work, and there are a lot of other people out there who have as well. What it all comes down to is common acceptance and realization that, yes, a sedan getting 50 mpg isn't all that unreasonable, and that, no, you don't need to run an electric hybrid (with lithium based batteries) to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would it be surprising to so many people if this worked ?
To a layman , it might not make sense that inflating your tires ( or something else along those lines ) would increase gas efficiency .
This is the same type of thing : significantly more complex , but still based on fairly sound basis.Consider : an engine runs better when it 's warmer , many ( the majority ) people in the US and Europe live in a 'cold ' climate during half the year , and   many people go for 'short drives' .
If you 're preheating the fuel , it 'll reduce a significant amount of energy loss due to the engine having to get warm before it can warm the fuel.Additionally , pressurizing it ( more than it 's being pressurized already -think of how vehicle performance decreases when your fuel pump is malfunctioning or the filter need replacement , reducing pressure ) and feeding it through a smaller injector would , I suspect , result in better performance .
Higher pressure = better/quicker dispersal from the injector .
( Also , I seem to recall that diesel is pressurized fairly highly before being injected , but I 'm not certain .
) I 've got an " HHO booster " in my 2000 Focus .
No , I 'm not seeing the 50 \ % fuel economy improvements - but I am seeing improvements .
I get about 15 \ % better fuel economy during the fall and spring , and almost 20 \ % better during the summer if I 'm driving ( my wife likes the AC on , silly her ) .
The water freezes during the winter and we do n't take road trips then , giving it a time to melt , so I disconnect it then.I 've got a friend who 's uncle is aAs for the fuel additive... possibly. Consider how much processing ( and mutilation ) is done to our fuels now to come in line with EPA requirements : if they 're putting in an additive which increases the octane or something like that , it 's quite possibly effective .
I know some vehicles perform significantly differently when they 're using ( say ) 87 vs. 89 or 89 vs. 91 octane gas.I 've got a friend who 's uncle worked on microwave technologies before he retired .
This uncle was a bit of an eccentric , but he was also really , really smart ( whether that has bearing on this topic or not , I could n't say ) .
His claim was he was getting 150-180mpg - an offhand comment , mind you - in an F150 truck by bombardment of the fuel line with microwaves ( iirc ) .
That same friend has a 6cyl Kia which he will regularly get 50mpg in on road trips ( through the local hilly terrain using an HHO booster ) , and he 's been doing it for 6 years.In high school , I knew an older recluse - he lived on an old farm by himself and went to town maybe once a month for " supplies " .
He 's occasionally come over to socialize .
He had a 1979 F150 ( something like that ) which he 'd put a 4BT Cummins in and a 12 speed manual transmission in it .
He ran it as a greasel , and he would get about 70mpg on road trips to visit family on the other side of the state.Hell , in a pretty plane-jane 2 ton 1985 Blazer , a non-turbo 5.8 Detroit will get 23mpg highway without much more than basic maintenance .
That 's better than many smaller , more aerodynamic cars.All told , some of these fuel improvement techniques/technologies work .
I 've seen them work , and there are a lot of other people out there who have as well .
What it all comes down to is common acceptance and realization that , yes , a sedan getting 50 mpg is n't all that unreasonable , and that , no , you do n't need to run an electric hybrid ( with lithium based batteries ) to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would it be surprising to so many people if this worked?
To a layman, it might not make sense that inflating your tires (or something else along those lines) would increase gas efficiency.
This is the same type of thing: significantly more complex, but still based on fairly sound basis.Consider: an engine runs better when it's warmer, many (the majority) people in the US and Europe live in a 'cold' climate during half the year, and
  many people go for 'short drives'.
If you're preheating the fuel, it'll reduce a significant amount of energy loss due to the engine having to get warm before it can warm the fuel.Additionally, pressurizing it (more than it's being pressurized already -think of how vehicle performance decreases when your fuel pump is malfunctioning or the filter need replacement, reducing pressure) and feeding it through a smaller injector would, I suspect, result in better performance.
Higher pressure = better/quicker dispersal from the injector.
(Also, I seem to recall that diesel is pressurized fairly highly before being injected, but I'm not certain.
)I've got an "HHO booster" in my 2000 Focus.
No, I'm not seeing the 50\% fuel economy improvements - but I am seeing improvements.
I get about 15\% better fuel economy during the fall and spring, and almost 20\% better during the summer if I'm driving (my wife likes the AC on, silly her).
The water freezes during the winter and we don't take road trips then, giving it a time to melt, so I disconnect it then.I've got a friend who's uncle is aAs for the fuel additive... possibly. Consider how much processing (and mutilation) is done to our fuels now to come in line with EPA requirements: if they're putting in an additive which increases the octane or something like that, it's quite possibly effective.
I know some vehicles perform significantly differently when they're using (say) 87 vs. 89 or 89 vs. 91 octane gas.I've got a friend who's uncle worked on microwave technologies before he retired.
This uncle was a bit of an eccentric, but he was also really, really smart (whether that has bearing on this topic or not, I couldn't say).
His claim was he was getting 150-180mpg - an offhand comment, mind you - in an F150 truck by bombardment of the fuel line with microwaves (iirc).
That same friend has a 6cyl Kia which he will regularly get 50mpg in on road trips (through the local hilly terrain using an HHO booster), and he's been doing it for 6 years.In high school, I knew an older recluse - he lived on an old farm by himself and went to town maybe once a month for "supplies".
He's occasionally come over to socialize.
He had a 1979 F150 (something like that) which he'd put a 4BT Cummins in and a 12 speed manual transmission in it.
He ran it as a greasel, and he would get about 70mpg on road trips to visit family on the other side of the state.Hell, in a pretty plane-jane 2 ton 1985 Blazer, a non-turbo 5.8 Detroit will get 23mpg highway without much more than basic maintenance.
That's better than many smaller, more aerodynamic cars.All told, some of these fuel improvement techniques/technologies work.
I've seen them work, and there are a lot of other people out there who have as well.
What it all comes down to is common acceptance and realization that, yes, a sedan getting 50 mpg isn't all that unreasonable, and that, no, you don't need to run an electric hybrid (with lithium based batteries) to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412432</id>
	<title>50\% efficient car engines? Now that's news!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268144700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"50\% Efficiency Boost"<br>"promises increased efficiency of up to 50\%. "</p><p>Please,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., learn the difference between "50\% efficiency" and "a 50\% increase in efficiency".  I come here to get away from the slapdash treatment of science in the mainstream press.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 50 \ % Efficiency Boost " " promises increased efficiency of up to 50 \ % .
" Please , /. , learn the difference between " 50 \ % efficiency " and " a 50 \ % increase in efficiency " .
I come here to get away from the slapdash treatment of science in the mainstream press .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"50\% Efficiency Boost""promises increased efficiency of up to 50\%.
"Please, /., learn the difference between "50\% efficiency" and "a 50\% increase in efficiency".
I come here to get away from the slapdash treatment of science in the mainstream press.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415954</id>
	<title>The same old question</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1268158860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm left with the same old question.</p><p>If the major car companies could indeed implement any of various technologies or techniques to enhance fuel economy, why would they NOT do it?</p><p>For instance, if just introducing turbulence in the fuel stream or direct injection in the chamber improved fuel economy substantially, why would they not do it?</p><p>Actually, they do.</p><p>TFA makes a few claims about the Transonic invention:</p><p>- Heating the gasoline.<br>- Pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber.<br>- injecting it into the combustion chamber.</p><p>Pre-heating the gasoline is not common, to my knowledge, in passenger car engines.  However, it is the subject of a <a href="http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5218944.html" title="freepatentsonline.com">patent</a> [freepatentsonline.com]. Indeed, there is an fascinating <a href="http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Carburetors/Anthony\_P\_ODonnell/" title="freeenergynews.com">writeup</a> [freeenergynews.com] by a determined and fairly clever amateur (maybe) on preheating the fuel.  His concept seems dangerous, but it might work... Might, if we could test it adequately.</p><p>Pressurizing the gasoline is fundamental to injection; the process is obvious upon inspection.  Higher pressures are being used now to overcome other problems.  So far, we are not seeing improved economy, largely because these techniques are being used to improve performance.  More about that later.</p><p>Injecting it into the chamber is not new, nor is it unused in passenger cars.  <a href="http://www.porsche.com/international/aboutporsche/porscheandenvironment/technology/fuelinjection/" title="porsche.com">Porche</a> [porsche.com] uses the technique, and advertises that it does improve economy.  This is not new art.</p><p>So, if these techniques are well-known ( I know of them, so I expect the engineers know them even better), why aren;t they beign used to improve economy?</p><p>Well, it's later now.  Performance is also a goal.</p><p>Turbocharging is used to essentially stuff more air and fuel into the chamber and either improve performance or economy, at little cost since it uses exhaust gas to power the pump.  Usually used to deliver performance.  actually, to deliver improved performance from otherwise economical engines.  Serving two purposes at the same time - good engineering.  Supercharging requires engine power to deliver the improved performance, so economy is not a goal there.</p><p>And the American market at least is not so focused on economy.  Somewhat, but we also want to be able to beat the other guy to the end of the ramp.  Deal with it.</p><p>Toyota clearly demonstrates the incentive manufacturers have to pursue economical cars, though right now it's as much marketing as it is market share.  All-electric cars were tried - the Chevy EV1.  It probably failed primarily because it threatened dealer profits.  There is some <a href="http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/2006/06/gms-ev1----who-killed-common-sense.html" title="edmunds.com">diversity of opinion</a> [edmunds.com] on this.  The EV1 was just an experiment.</p><p>But my answer to the question "why not" is simple.  These techniques to improve economy are not without consequences.  Preheating fuel increases pressure and therefore chamber pressures.  This imposes new demands on engine design, some increasing weight and size, which is contrary to current design trends.  Complex injector design needs to be tested to verify it can survive at least the 100,000 mile standards.  Lots of inventors don't ever test long-term or design life.  The EPA does.</p><p>Bottom line, for me, is that if it were that simple it's either a true breakthrough or it's not that good in practice.  Which one is this?  I vote not that good in practice, but if it is, the manufacturers will either license it or steal it.  Or not, for a good (to them) reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm left with the same old question.If the major car companies could indeed implement any of various technologies or techniques to enhance fuel economy , why would they NOT do it ? For instance , if just introducing turbulence in the fuel stream or direct injection in the chamber improved fuel economy substantially , why would they not do it ? Actually , they do.TFA makes a few claims about the Transonic invention : - Heating the gasoline.- Pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber.- injecting it into the combustion chamber.Pre-heating the gasoline is not common , to my knowledge , in passenger car engines .
However , it is the subject of a patent [ freepatentsonline.com ] .
Indeed , there is an fascinating writeup [ freeenergynews.com ] by a determined and fairly clever amateur ( maybe ) on preheating the fuel .
His concept seems dangerous , but it might work... Might , if we could test it adequately.Pressurizing the gasoline is fundamental to injection ; the process is obvious upon inspection .
Higher pressures are being used now to overcome other problems .
So far , we are not seeing improved economy , largely because these techniques are being used to improve performance .
More about that later.Injecting it into the chamber is not new , nor is it unused in passenger cars .
Porche [ porsche.com ] uses the technique , and advertises that it does improve economy .
This is not new art.So , if these techniques are well-known ( I know of them , so I expect the engineers know them even better ) , why aren ; t they beign used to improve economy ? Well , it 's later now .
Performance is also a goal.Turbocharging is used to essentially stuff more air and fuel into the chamber and either improve performance or economy , at little cost since it uses exhaust gas to power the pump .
Usually used to deliver performance .
actually , to deliver improved performance from otherwise economical engines .
Serving two purposes at the same time - good engineering .
Supercharging requires engine power to deliver the improved performance , so economy is not a goal there.And the American market at least is not so focused on economy .
Somewhat , but we also want to be able to beat the other guy to the end of the ramp .
Deal with it.Toyota clearly demonstrates the incentive manufacturers have to pursue economical cars , though right now it 's as much marketing as it is market share .
All-electric cars were tried - the Chevy EV1 .
It probably failed primarily because it threatened dealer profits .
There is some diversity of opinion [ edmunds.com ] on this .
The EV1 was just an experiment.But my answer to the question " why not " is simple .
These techniques to improve economy are not without consequences .
Preheating fuel increases pressure and therefore chamber pressures .
This imposes new demands on engine design , some increasing weight and size , which is contrary to current design trends .
Complex injector design needs to be tested to verify it can survive at least the 100,000 mile standards .
Lots of inventors do n't ever test long-term or design life .
The EPA does.Bottom line , for me , is that if it were that simple it 's either a true breakthrough or it 's not that good in practice .
Which one is this ?
I vote not that good in practice , but if it is , the manufacturers will either license it or steal it .
Or not , for a good ( to them ) reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm left with the same old question.If the major car companies could indeed implement any of various technologies or techniques to enhance fuel economy, why would they NOT do it?For instance, if just introducing turbulence in the fuel stream or direct injection in the chamber improved fuel economy substantially, why would they not do it?Actually, they do.TFA makes a few claims about the Transonic invention:- Heating the gasoline.- Pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber.- injecting it into the combustion chamber.Pre-heating the gasoline is not common, to my knowledge, in passenger car engines.
However, it is the subject of a patent [freepatentsonline.com].
Indeed, there is an fascinating writeup [freeenergynews.com] by a determined and fairly clever amateur (maybe) on preheating the fuel.
His concept seems dangerous, but it might work... Might, if we could test it adequately.Pressurizing the gasoline is fundamental to injection; the process is obvious upon inspection.
Higher pressures are being used now to overcome other problems.
So far, we are not seeing improved economy, largely because these techniques are being used to improve performance.
More about that later.Injecting it into the chamber is not new, nor is it unused in passenger cars.
Porche [porsche.com] uses the technique, and advertises that it does improve economy.
This is not new art.So, if these techniques are well-known ( I know of them, so I expect the engineers know them even better), why aren;t they beign used to improve economy?Well, it's later now.
Performance is also a goal.Turbocharging is used to essentially stuff more air and fuel into the chamber and either improve performance or economy, at little cost since it uses exhaust gas to power the pump.
Usually used to deliver performance.
actually, to deliver improved performance from otherwise economical engines.
Serving two purposes at the same time - good engineering.
Supercharging requires engine power to deliver the improved performance, so economy is not a goal there.And the American market at least is not so focused on economy.
Somewhat, but we also want to be able to beat the other guy to the end of the ramp.
Deal with it.Toyota clearly demonstrates the incentive manufacturers have to pursue economical cars, though right now it's as much marketing as it is market share.
All-electric cars were tried - the Chevy EV1.
It probably failed primarily because it threatened dealer profits.
There is some diversity of opinion [edmunds.com] on this.
The EV1 was just an experiment.But my answer to the question "why not" is simple.
These techniques to improve economy are not without consequences.
Preheating fuel increases pressure and therefore chamber pressures.
This imposes new demands on engine design, some increasing weight and size, which is contrary to current design trends.
Complex injector design needs to be tested to verify it can survive at least the 100,000 mile standards.
Lots of inventors don't ever test long-term or design life.
The EPA does.Bottom line, for me, is that if it were that simple it's either a true breakthrough or it's not that good in practice.
Which one is this?
I vote not that good in practice, but if it is, the manufacturers will either license it or steal it.
Or not, for a good (to them) reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413254</id>
	<title>Re:Not just "similar" to a diesel</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268148420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can run diesel engines on E95, AKA 95\% ethanol and 5\% gasoline. In one study static compression was raised to 23:1 and timing changes were made, with no other modifications. So this <em>is</em> interesting, in that it's a diesel engine running on gasoline, which has been formerly impossible. But then, it's still an evolution and not a revolution. Also, I'd rather burn diesel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can run diesel engines on E95 , AKA 95 \ % ethanol and 5 \ % gasoline .
In one study static compression was raised to 23 : 1 and timing changes were made , with no other modifications .
So this is interesting , in that it 's a diesel engine running on gasoline , which has been formerly impossible .
But then , it 's still an evolution and not a revolution .
Also , I 'd rather burn diesel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can run diesel engines on E95, AKA 95\% ethanol and 5\% gasoline.
In one study static compression was raised to 23:1 and timing changes were made, with no other modifications.
So this is interesting, in that it's a diesel engine running on gasoline, which has been formerly impossible.
But then, it's still an evolution and not a revolution.
Also, I'd rather burn diesel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414314</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Wiarumas</author>
	<datestamp>1268152920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think its that unbelievable.  Its just a matter of scaling.  A 50\% boost to 15MPG is 23MPG.  20MPG is 30MPG.  I've seen cold air intakes add 1-5 MPG on certain cars that get MPG in the 15-30MPG range.  So, I don't think its too outrageous of claim.  Might not be the holy grail of fine tuning a Prius to get another 30MPG, but I'm sure it probably will increase it MPG at least somewhat.  In the end, its all about ROI.  Will this tack on another 4k to the sticker price, or can this be implemented without too much hassle?  And repair cost?  Is it durable? Etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think its that unbelievable .
Its just a matter of scaling .
A 50 \ % boost to 15MPG is 23MPG .
20MPG is 30MPG .
I 've seen cold air intakes add 1-5 MPG on certain cars that get MPG in the 15-30MPG range .
So , I do n't think its too outrageous of claim .
Might not be the holy grail of fine tuning a Prius to get another 30MPG , but I 'm sure it probably will increase it MPG at least somewhat .
In the end , its all about ROI .
Will this tack on another 4k to the sticker price , or can this be implemented without too much hassle ?
And repair cost ?
Is it durable ?
Etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think its that unbelievable.
Its just a matter of scaling.
A 50\% boost to 15MPG is 23MPG.
20MPG is 30MPG.
I've seen cold air intakes add 1-5 MPG on certain cars that get MPG in the 15-30MPG range.
So, I don't think its too outrageous of claim.
Might not be the holy grail of fine tuning a Prius to get another 30MPG, but I'm sure it probably will increase it MPG at least somewhat.
In the end, its all about ROI.
Will this tack on another 4k to the sticker price, or can this be implemented without too much hassle?
And repair cost?
Is it durable?
Etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31417632</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>vaalrus</author>
	<datestamp>1268166240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that the largest proportion of fuel is mixed in to run richly, so as to provide a heat sink to slow and cool the combustion (there was a reason we added lead and/or MTBE to gasoline) to prevent knock or melting the engine, we are effectively throwing out half the gas unburned, or rather, spewing it out in a deliberately inefficient fashion.  Now, we could (and have) inject other liquids in with the fuels, but they do bring their own problems, not the least of which is having to maintain two consumables tanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the largest proportion of fuel is mixed in to run richly , so as to provide a heat sink to slow and cool the combustion ( there was a reason we added lead and/or MTBE to gasoline ) to prevent knock or melting the engine , we are effectively throwing out half the gas unburned , or rather , spewing it out in a deliberately inefficient fashion .
Now , we could ( and have ) inject other liquids in with the fuels , but they do bring their own problems , not the least of which is having to maintain two consumables tanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the largest proportion of fuel is mixed in to run richly, so as to provide a heat sink to slow and cool the combustion (there was a reason we added lead and/or MTBE to gasoline) to prevent knock or melting the engine, we are effectively throwing out half the gas unburned, or rather, spewing it out in a deliberately inefficient fashion.
Now, we could (and have) inject other liquids in with the fuels, but they do bring their own problems, not the least of which is having to maintain two consumables tanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412556</id>
	<title>"...vice president of business development"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268145300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So is this guy an actual scientist, or someone just fishing for VC?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So is this guy an actual scientist , or someone just fishing for VC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is this guy an actual scientist, or someone just fishing for VC?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412408</id>
	<title>Yeah . . . riiiiight !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268144640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call it what it is</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call it what it is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call it what it is</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413944</id>
	<title>Sounds similar to Smokey Yunich's hot vapor engine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268151420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This idea isn't too far from from Smokey Yunich's hot vapor engine from the early 80s, only this time with fuel injection instead of a carburetor.</p><p>For those who don't know who he is; Smokey Yunich was a famous race car driver, mechanic, and inventor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This idea is n't too far from from Smokey Yunich 's hot vapor engine from the early 80s , only this time with fuel injection instead of a carburetor.For those who do n't know who he is ; Smokey Yunich was a famous race car driver , mechanic , and inventor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This idea isn't too far from from Smokey Yunich's hot vapor engine from the early 80s, only this time with fuel injection instead of a carburetor.For those who don't know who he is; Smokey Yunich was a famous race car driver, mechanic, and inventor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422594</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like something else...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268151660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10\% gain for a diesel engine sounds fair because it is already a far more fuel efficient engine over a gas engine.  But if you can run a gas engine as efficient or more efficient as a diesel, then perhaps 50\% is attainable (for gasoline)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 \ % gain for a diesel engine sounds fair because it is already a far more fuel efficient engine over a gas engine .
But if you can run a gas engine as efficient or more efficient as a diesel , then perhaps 50 \ % is attainable ( for gasoline ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10\% gain for a diesel engine sounds fair because it is already a far more fuel efficient engine over a gas engine.
But if you can run a gas engine as efficient or more efficient as a diesel, then perhaps 50\% is attainable (for gasoline)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31421124</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1268138940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm beginning to think yet another person has suddenly discovered that engines are not optimised to run while idle and they've set up a test bed of an engine with no load and are getting fantastic fuel economy by tweaking the mix.  Just about anyone can do that (even a famous Australian artist fell into that trap) and it's not news and it doesn't help once you want to get a vehicle moving somewhere.  We already know a better way to get even better fuel efficency when idle - you turn the thing off!<br>Until this gets confirmed by engineers at a respectible University or major car company it can probably get added to the long list of disappointments or scams.<br>Peer review gets rid of snake oil scams.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm beginning to think yet another person has suddenly discovered that engines are not optimised to run while idle and they 've set up a test bed of an engine with no load and are getting fantastic fuel economy by tweaking the mix .
Just about anyone can do that ( even a famous Australian artist fell into that trap ) and it 's not news and it does n't help once you want to get a vehicle moving somewhere .
We already know a better way to get even better fuel efficency when idle - you turn the thing off ! Until this gets confirmed by engineers at a respectible University or major car company it can probably get added to the long list of disappointments or scams.Peer review gets rid of snake oil scams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm beginning to think yet another person has suddenly discovered that engines are not optimised to run while idle and they've set up a test bed of an engine with no load and are getting fantastic fuel economy by tweaking the mix.
Just about anyone can do that (even a famous Australian artist fell into that trap) and it's not news and it doesn't help once you want to get a vehicle moving somewhere.
We already know a better way to get even better fuel efficency when idle - you turn the thing off!Until this gets confirmed by engineers at a respectible University or major car company it can probably get added to the long list of disappointments or scams.Peer review gets rid of snake oil scams.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412418</id>
	<title>contradicts itself</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1268144640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article starts out saying it can increase efficiency up to 50\%.  Later it says efficiency can be improved on the order of 20\%.  Which is it.  Hate to say it but this is a classic red-flag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article starts out saying it can increase efficiency up to 50 \ % .
Later it says efficiency can be improved on the order of 20 \ % .
Which is it .
Hate to say it but this is a classic red-flag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article starts out saying it can increase efficiency up to 50\%.
Later it says efficiency can be improved on the order of 20\%.
Which is it.
Hate to say it but this is a classic red-flag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31420856</id>
	<title>Just another BS fuel economy scam.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268137320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>50\% increase in efficiency... high quality well tuned internal combustion engines can operate at up to 58\% of the theoretically available energy with the bulk of the losses being from friction in they cylinder wall, crank, etc... It's just another 100 mpg or HHO/water driven engine scam.</p><p>Why don't you clamp some magnets on the fuel line- my guess is it will give you 10\% better fuel economy till you actually test it or bother learning about internal combustion engines.</p><p>Try: Fundamentals of Internal Combustion Engines, Heywood 1989<br>Still the best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>50 \ % increase in efficiency... high quality well tuned internal combustion engines can operate at up to 58 \ % of the theoretically available energy with the bulk of the losses being from friction in they cylinder wall , crank , etc... It 's just another 100 mpg or HHO/water driven engine scam.Why do n't you clamp some magnets on the fuel line- my guess is it will give you 10 \ % better fuel economy till you actually test it or bother learning about internal combustion engines.Try : Fundamentals of Internal Combustion Engines , Heywood 1989Still the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>50\% increase in efficiency... high quality well tuned internal combustion engines can operate at up to 58\% of the theoretically available energy with the bulk of the losses being from friction in they cylinder wall, crank, etc... It's just another 100 mpg or HHO/water driven engine scam.Why don't you clamp some magnets on the fuel line- my guess is it will give you 10\% better fuel economy till you actually test it or bother learning about internal combustion engines.Try: Fundamentals of Internal Combustion Engines, Heywood 1989Still the best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414842</id>
	<title>50\% of what?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1268154900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An increase from 20\% to 30\% might be described as a "50\% efficiency boost".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An increase from 20 \ % to 30 \ % might be described as a " 50 \ % efficiency boost " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An increase from 20\% to 30\% might be described as a "50\% efficiency boost".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413690</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>CapnOats.com</author>
	<datestamp>1268150280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Miles per Gallon is the silly figure. It's so silly it's practically useless.</p><p>Hypothetical time!<br>Let's say that my neighbour and I work at the same building, 25 miles from home.</p><p>I drive my car at 50 mpg on the way to work and therefore burn 0.5 gallons of fuel. If on the way home I'm more frugal and drive at 55 mpg, I burn 0.455 gallons of fuel. A saving of 0.045 gallons over this morning's run.</p><p>Now let's say my neighbour's car's a bit more economical and he can drive to work at 70mpg, using 0.357 gallons on the way. If he follows my frugal lead and is careful on the way home he too saves 5 mpg and so at 75mpg only uses 0.333 gallons of fuel.</p><p>His "light foot" exercise nets him a saving of 0.024 gallons. From this we can see that an extra 5 mpg going from 50 - 55 mpg is more worthwhile than going from 70 - 75 mpg. Almost twice as effective.</p><p>That's why mpg is a silly value as every time someone posts a new "high score" they are actually posting less and less of an improvement.</p><p>l/100km give you an accurate, unbiased view of fuel consumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Miles per Gallon is the silly figure .
It 's so silly it 's practically useless.Hypothetical time ! Let 's say that my neighbour and I work at the same building , 25 miles from home.I drive my car at 50 mpg on the way to work and therefore burn 0.5 gallons of fuel .
If on the way home I 'm more frugal and drive at 55 mpg , I burn 0.455 gallons of fuel .
A saving of 0.045 gallons over this morning 's run.Now let 's say my neighbour 's car 's a bit more economical and he can drive to work at 70mpg , using 0.357 gallons on the way .
If he follows my frugal lead and is careful on the way home he too saves 5 mpg and so at 75mpg only uses 0.333 gallons of fuel.His " light foot " exercise nets him a saving of 0.024 gallons .
From this we can see that an extra 5 mpg going from 50 - 55 mpg is more worthwhile than going from 70 - 75 mpg .
Almost twice as effective.That 's why mpg is a silly value as every time someone posts a new " high score " they are actually posting less and less of an improvement.l/100km give you an accurate , unbiased view of fuel consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Miles per Gallon is the silly figure.
It's so silly it's practically useless.Hypothetical time!Let's say that my neighbour and I work at the same building, 25 miles from home.I drive my car at 50 mpg on the way to work and therefore burn 0.5 gallons of fuel.
If on the way home I'm more frugal and drive at 55 mpg, I burn 0.455 gallons of fuel.
A saving of 0.045 gallons over this morning's run.Now let's say my neighbour's car's a bit more economical and he can drive to work at 70mpg, using 0.357 gallons on the way.
If he follows my frugal lead and is careful on the way home he too saves 5 mpg and so at 75mpg only uses 0.333 gallons of fuel.His "light foot" exercise nets him a saving of 0.024 gallons.
From this we can see that an extra 5 mpg going from 50 - 55 mpg is more worthwhile than going from 70 - 75 mpg.
Almost twice as effective.That's why mpg is a silly value as every time someone posts a new "high score" they are actually posting less and less of an improvement.l/100km give you an accurate, unbiased view of fuel consumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414750</id>
	<title>Smokey Yunick's ghost wants credit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268154600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Smokey build a Hot Vapor Cycle Engine 30 years ago that heated the fuel using the exhaust heat and a turbo. Emissions and fuel consumption went down, power went up.</p><p>Wonder if the filed a patent...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smokey build a Hot Vapor Cycle Engine 30 years ago that heated the fuel using the exhaust heat and a turbo .
Emissions and fuel consumption went down , power went up.Wonder if the filed a patent.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smokey build a Hot Vapor Cycle Engine 30 years ago that heated the fuel using the exhaust heat and a turbo.
Emissions and fuel consumption went down, power went up.Wonder if the filed a patent...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31417166</id>
	<title>Old ideas...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268164140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing here sounds new. In fact there was a guy who used this "heated pressurized fuel injection" technique on a Pontiac Fiero in the '80s and sold the technology to GM, who summarily shelved it. It was a gasoline engine though it made something in excess of 40MPG. The heating was done by some kind of radiator device attached to the exhaust. I don't understand what is revolutionary about this?!? It seems like it just uses a combination of:</p><p>#1 direct injection (not so common in the US because of increased emissions but a commodity in European models)<br>#2 this heated fuel technique (already stated this was done in the '80s)<br>#3 common electronic fuel injection control systems ("The company has developed proprietary software that lets the system adjust the injection precisely depending on the load put on the engine. ")<br>#4 forced induction using a turbocharger, which has been around for decades (just shy of a century, the first turbos were fitted to large locomotive and airplane engines in the 1920s)</p><p>Other than #2, which has been done before and the patent for which might still be owned by GM, the rest of the technologies have been done extensively before and I believe there are at least a handful of car models that use all three (although again, 1 might be more common in gasoline engines rather than diesel). I wouldn't be surprised if GM sued this company for infringing on #2 if the patent is still valid after all these years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing here sounds new .
In fact there was a guy who used this " heated pressurized fuel injection " technique on a Pontiac Fiero in the '80s and sold the technology to GM , who summarily shelved it .
It was a gasoline engine though it made something in excess of 40MPG .
The heating was done by some kind of radiator device attached to the exhaust .
I do n't understand what is revolutionary about this ? ! ?
It seems like it just uses a combination of : # 1 direct injection ( not so common in the US because of increased emissions but a commodity in European models ) # 2 this heated fuel technique ( already stated this was done in the '80s ) # 3 common electronic fuel injection control systems ( " The company has developed proprietary software that lets the system adjust the injection precisely depending on the load put on the engine .
" ) # 4 forced induction using a turbocharger , which has been around for decades ( just shy of a century , the first turbos were fitted to large locomotive and airplane engines in the 1920s ) Other than # 2 , which has been done before and the patent for which might still be owned by GM , the rest of the technologies have been done extensively before and I believe there are at least a handful of car models that use all three ( although again , 1 might be more common in gasoline engines rather than diesel ) .
I would n't be surprised if GM sued this company for infringing on # 2 if the patent is still valid after all these years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing here sounds new.
In fact there was a guy who used this "heated pressurized fuel injection" technique on a Pontiac Fiero in the '80s and sold the technology to GM, who summarily shelved it.
It was a gasoline engine though it made something in excess of 40MPG.
The heating was done by some kind of radiator device attached to the exhaust.
I don't understand what is revolutionary about this?!?
It seems like it just uses a combination of:#1 direct injection (not so common in the US because of increased emissions but a commodity in European models)#2 this heated fuel technique (already stated this was done in the '80s)#3 common electronic fuel injection control systems ("The company has developed proprietary software that lets the system adjust the injection precisely depending on the load put on the engine.
")#4 forced induction using a turbocharger, which has been around for decades (just shy of a century, the first turbos were fitted to large locomotive and airplane engines in the 1920s)Other than #2, which has been done before and the patent for which might still be owned by GM, the rest of the technologies have been done extensively before and I believe there are at least a handful of car models that use all three (although again, 1 might be more common in gasoline engines rather than diesel).
I wouldn't be surprised if GM sued this company for infringing on #2 if the patent is still valid after all these years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</id>
	<title>I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Moraelin</author>
	<datestamp>1268145000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, by the end of TFA (which I'll assume \_you\_ have read before making a RTFA demand of others) they get even more generous with the claims, and say it gets 98 MPG at 50 mph. (I.e., in a range where, sorry, but it's not \_that\_ aerodynamic.) I.e., basically 2.4l per 100 km on the highway.</p><p>I'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted from that gasoline, because, well, physics is physics. The efficiency of the cycle is capped the hard way by the max and ambient temperature difference, and short of inventing an engine which runs at thousands of degrees, the alternative would be that conventional engines were spewing out half the gas unburned. Which just isn't the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , by the end of TFA ( which I 'll assume \ _you \ _ have read before making a RTFA demand of others ) they get even more generous with the claims , and say it gets 98 MPG at 50 mph .
( I.e. , in a range where , sorry , but it 's not \ _that \ _ aerodynamic .
) I.e. , basically 2.4l per 100 km on the highway.I 'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted from that gasoline , because , well , physics is physics .
The efficiency of the cycle is capped the hard way by the max and ambient temperature difference , and short of inventing an engine which runs at thousands of degrees , the alternative would be that conventional engines were spewing out half the gas unburned .
Which just is n't the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, by the end of TFA (which I'll assume \_you\_ have read before making a RTFA demand of others) they get even more generous with the claims, and say it gets 98 MPG at 50 mph.
(I.e., in a range where, sorry, but it's not \_that\_ aerodynamic.
) I.e., basically 2.4l per 100 km on the highway.I'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted from that gasoline, because, well, physics is physics.
The efficiency of the cycle is capped the hard way by the max and ambient temperature difference, and short of inventing an engine which runs at thousands of degrees, the alternative would be that conventional engines were spewing out half the gas unburned.
Which just isn't the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412428</id>
	<title>Doesn't solve the oil problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268144700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if it greatly reduces fuel usage, this still won't solve the energy problem the world faces. New combustion engines aren't the future; renewable energy is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if it greatly reduces fuel usage , this still wo n't solve the energy problem the world faces .
New combustion engines are n't the future ; renewable energy is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if it greatly reduces fuel usage, this still won't solve the energy problem the world faces.
New combustion engines aren't the future; renewable energy is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414674</id>
	<title>I'd hate to see a malfunction...</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1268154300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd hate to see a malfunction in the heating element.<ol> <li>Warm, compress, and oxidize fuel.</li><li>Accidentally overheat prepped fuel to flash point.</li><li> *BOOM*</li><li>Auto manufacturers deny that it had anything to do with electrical control systems.  They blame faulty valves.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd hate to see a malfunction in the heating element .
Warm , compress , and oxidize fuel.Accidentally overheat prepped fuel to flash point .
* BOOM * Auto manufacturers deny that it had anything to do with electrical control systems .
They blame faulty valves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd hate to see a malfunction in the heating element.
Warm, compress, and oxidize fuel.Accidentally overheat prepped fuel to flash point.
*BOOM*Auto manufacturers deny that it had anything to do with electrical control systems.
They blame faulty valves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415604</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>SimonTheSoundMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268157480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another reason this sounds like BS: billions of dollars are being invested to meet the 35mpg CAFE standard by 2020 [autoblog.com]. When Congress was talking about requiring 32mpg by 2015 it was estimated it would cost $47 billion dollars [msn.com] to reach that goal: "For the auto industry, it will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion."</p> </div><p>I think that isn't a technological problem, we [in Europe at least] have cars that can exceed this quite easily. It's a social problem, which the Americans need to sort.</p><p>You do not need a 3.5l, 2.5 ton pickup truck just to drive to your office job. A 1.4l or 1.6l hatchback will get you 35-40mpg easily.</p><p>My Peugeot car does 50mpg.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another reason this sounds like BS : billions of dollars are being invested to meet the 35mpg CAFE standard by 2020 [ autoblog.com ] .
When Congress was talking about requiring 32mpg by 2015 it was estimated it would cost $ 47 billion dollars [ msn.com ] to reach that goal : " For the auto industry , it will be costly ; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $ 47 billion .
" I think that is n't a technological problem , we [ in Europe at least ] have cars that can exceed this quite easily .
It 's a social problem , which the Americans need to sort.You do not need a 3.5l , 2.5 ton pickup truck just to drive to your office job .
A 1.4l or 1.6l hatchback will get you 35-40mpg easily.My Peugeot car does 50mpg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another reason this sounds like BS: billions of dollars are being invested to meet the 35mpg CAFE standard by 2020 [autoblog.com].
When Congress was talking about requiring 32mpg by 2015 it was estimated it would cost $47 billion dollars [msn.com] to reach that goal: "For the auto industry, it will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion.
" I think that isn't a technological problem, we [in Europe at least] have cars that can exceed this quite easily.
It's a social problem, which the Americans need to sort.You do not need a 3.5l, 2.5 ton pickup truck just to drive to your office job.
A 1.4l or 1.6l hatchback will get you 35-40mpg easily.My Peugeot car does 50mpg.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414288</id>
	<title>The SAE seem to buy it.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268152800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/7160</p><p>And I would have thought that they would be amongst the first to call BS. The gist seems to be by correctly heating and pressurising the fuel at the moment of injection, the time it takes to mix adequately with the compressed air charge in the cylinder is reduced greatly, such that the flamefront never reaches the cylinder walls (thus reducing thermal loss to the cylinder lining) and also occurs quickly and early in the power stroke such that less energy is lost down the tailpipe.</p><p>By reducing the fuel to simpler hydrocarbons through the use of a catalyst the combustion time is further reduced, which means that it can be initiated during the power stage rather than being introduced before the piston has reached top-dead-centre. This should mean that the usual problems of direct gasoline injection - that it is difficult to avoid knock as the charge needs to be injected before top-dead-centre due to the duration of the combustion event - can be avoided.</p><p>Furthermore, as the engine is able to run very lean - you can just leave the throttle open even under low load conditions (such as cruise) - and just control the power by varying the amount of fuel injected, thus reducing the energy used to draw the intake air through a part-closed throttle.</p><p>Although I often think 'if it is possible, why did Honda or Toyota not come up with it a decade ago?', there is nothing here that sounds beyond the realm of the possible to this Engineer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.sae.org/mags/aei/7160And I would have thought that they would be amongst the first to call BS .
The gist seems to be by correctly heating and pressurising the fuel at the moment of injection , the time it takes to mix adequately with the compressed air charge in the cylinder is reduced greatly , such that the flamefront never reaches the cylinder walls ( thus reducing thermal loss to the cylinder lining ) and also occurs quickly and early in the power stroke such that less energy is lost down the tailpipe.By reducing the fuel to simpler hydrocarbons through the use of a catalyst the combustion time is further reduced , which means that it can be initiated during the power stage rather than being introduced before the piston has reached top-dead-centre .
This should mean that the usual problems of direct gasoline injection - that it is difficult to avoid knock as the charge needs to be injected before top-dead-centre due to the duration of the combustion event - can be avoided.Furthermore , as the engine is able to run very lean - you can just leave the throttle open even under low load conditions ( such as cruise ) - and just control the power by varying the amount of fuel injected , thus reducing the energy used to draw the intake air through a part-closed throttle.Although I often think 'if it is possible , why did Honda or Toyota not come up with it a decade ago ?
' , there is nothing here that sounds beyond the realm of the possible to this Engineer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/7160And I would have thought that they would be amongst the first to call BS.
The gist seems to be by correctly heating and pressurising the fuel at the moment of injection, the time it takes to mix adequately with the compressed air charge in the cylinder is reduced greatly, such that the flamefront never reaches the cylinder walls (thus reducing thermal loss to the cylinder lining) and also occurs quickly and early in the power stroke such that less energy is lost down the tailpipe.By reducing the fuel to simpler hydrocarbons through the use of a catalyst the combustion time is further reduced, which means that it can be initiated during the power stage rather than being introduced before the piston has reached top-dead-centre.
This should mean that the usual problems of direct gasoline injection - that it is difficult to avoid knock as the charge needs to be injected before top-dead-centre due to the duration of the combustion event - can be avoided.Furthermore, as the engine is able to run very lean - you can just leave the throttle open even under low load conditions (such as cruise) - and just control the power by varying the amount of fuel injected, thus reducing the energy used to draw the intake air through a part-closed throttle.Although I often think 'if it is possible, why did Honda or Toyota not come up with it a decade ago?
', there is nothing here that sounds beyond the realm of the possible to this Engineer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415364</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>jon3k</author>
	<datestamp>1268156580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sceptical of anyone who thinks a 50\% increase is doubling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sceptical of anyone who thinks a 50 \ % increase is doubling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sceptical of anyone who thinks a 50\% increase is doubling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412884</id>
	<title>Re:magnets?</title>
	<author>ZeroExistenZ</author>
	<datestamp>1268146920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also, if you put rare earth magnets on your fuel lines, it streamlines the molecules as they go into the engine</p></div></blockquote><p>They were proven to slow down the flow and cluster the explosive molecules around the magnet, slowing the combustion down.</p><p>(the magnet trick is snakeoil.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , if you put rare earth magnets on your fuel lines , it streamlines the molecules as they go into the engineThey were proven to slow down the flow and cluster the explosive molecules around the magnet , slowing the combustion down .
( the magnet trick is snakeoil .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, if you put rare earth magnets on your fuel lines, it streamlines the molecules as they go into the engineThey were proven to slow down the flow and cluster the explosive molecules around the magnet, slowing the combustion down.
(the magnet trick is snakeoil.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416294</id>
	<title>Up to 50\%...</title>
	<author>skiman1979</author>
	<datestamp>1268160180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's nice that they promise up to 50\%, but a 0\% increase in efficiency meets that promise.  So they can do nothing and still succeed.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice that they promise up to 50 \ % , but a 0 \ % increase in efficiency meets that promise .
So they can do nothing and still succeed .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice that they promise up to 50\%, but a 0\% increase in efficiency meets that promise.
So they can do nothing and still succeed.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413050</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Fantom42</author>
	<datestamp>1268147520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is right to be skeptical, but the theoretical efficiency of a typical Diesel is in the 50\% range.</p><p><a href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/diesel.html" title="gsu.edu">http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/diesel.html</a> [gsu.edu]</p><p>This thing is not a Diesel engine, but it looks like it might be similar to one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is right to be skeptical , but the theoretical efficiency of a typical Diesel is in the 50 \ % range.http : //hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/diesel.html [ gsu.edu ] This thing is not a Diesel engine , but it looks like it might be similar to one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is right to be skeptical, but the theoretical efficiency of a typical Diesel is in the 50\% range.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/diesel.html [gsu.edu]This thing is not a Diesel engine, but it looks like it might be similar to one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412824</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>realityimpaired</author>
	<datestamp>1268146680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y'know, I don't really have a hard time believing that it could get 100mpg at 50mph... 50mph isn't *that* fast, for one, and for two, there's cars on the market today which are able to get 70mpg at those speeds. Even my 3-year old Chev aveo is able to pull about 50mpg at those speeds if I do it right. (arrow-straight, flat road, a/c off, windows closed, manual transmission) And I'm not talking about EPA posted results, I'm talking about real-world testing that I've done in my own car with me driving.</p><p>There's even an amatuer sport of sorts that comes from this, called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermiling" title="wikipedia.org">hypermiling</a> [wikipedia.org]. Some of the better hypermilers are able to get over 100mpg out of a car like mine, and the world record is over 200mpg out of a Honda Insight. So no, 100mpg out of a production car isn't that astonishing or out to lunch to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y'know , I do n't really have a hard time believing that it could get 100mpg at 50mph... 50mph is n't * that * fast , for one , and for two , there 's cars on the market today which are able to get 70mpg at those speeds .
Even my 3-year old Chev aveo is able to pull about 50mpg at those speeds if I do it right .
( arrow-straight , flat road , a/c off , windows closed , manual transmission ) And I 'm not talking about EPA posted results , I 'm talking about real-world testing that I 've done in my own car with me driving.There 's even an amatuer sport of sorts that comes from this , called hypermiling [ wikipedia.org ] .
Some of the better hypermilers are able to get over 100mpg out of a car like mine , and the world record is over 200mpg out of a Honda Insight .
So no , 100mpg out of a production car is n't that astonishing or out to lunch to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y'know, I don't really have a hard time believing that it could get 100mpg at 50mph... 50mph isn't *that* fast, for one, and for two, there's cars on the market today which are able to get 70mpg at those speeds.
Even my 3-year old Chev aveo is able to pull about 50mpg at those speeds if I do it right.
(arrow-straight, flat road, a/c off, windows closed, manual transmission) And I'm not talking about EPA posted results, I'm talking about real-world testing that I've done in my own car with me driving.There's even an amatuer sport of sorts that comes from this, called hypermiling [wikipedia.org].
Some of the better hypermilers are able to get over 100mpg out of a car like mine, and the world record is over 200mpg out of a Honda Insight.
So no, 100mpg out of a production car isn't that astonishing or out to lunch to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413892</id>
	<title>Re:If you post before this</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1268151300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Porsche 918 Spyder gets 58mpg and this is a freaken scream machine. <a href="http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/porsche-918-spyder-hybrid-78-mpg3-2-to-60/" title="everyjoe.com">Porsche</a> [everyjoe.com] <br> <br>

I mean, really, if they can get this kind of car (0-60mph in 3.2 seconds) then there is no excuse for ALL cards to get such great ratings.  The whole "hybrids are slow" is ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Porsche 918 Spyder gets 58mpg and this is a freaken scream machine .
Porsche [ everyjoe.com ] I mean , really , if they can get this kind of car ( 0-60mph in 3.2 seconds ) then there is no excuse for ALL cards to get such great ratings .
The whole " hybrids are slow " is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Porsche 918 Spyder gets 58mpg and this is a freaken scream machine.
Porsche [everyjoe.com]  

I mean, really, if they can get this kind of car (0-60mph in 3.2 seconds) then there is no excuse for ALL cards to get such great ratings.
The whole "hybrids are slow" is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31418268</id>
	<title>Re:NOx and emissions?</title>
	<author>3waygeek</author>
	<datestamp>1268125680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NOx can be handled the same way it is in the newer "clean diesel" engines -- either through particulate filters or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective\_catalytic\_reduction" title="wikipedia.org">selective catalytic reduction</a> [wikipedia.org] (SCR -- basically injecting urea into the exhaust stream to convert the NOx into CO2 and NH3, which is then converted catalytically to N2 and H2O).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NOx can be handled the same way it is in the newer " clean diesel " engines -- either through particulate filters or selective catalytic reduction [ wikipedia.org ] ( SCR -- basically injecting urea into the exhaust stream to convert the NOx into CO2 and NH3 , which is then converted catalytically to N2 and H2O ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOx can be handled the same way it is in the newer "clean diesel" engines -- either through particulate filters or selective catalytic reduction [wikipedia.org] (SCR -- basically injecting urea into the exhaust stream to convert the NOx into CO2 and NH3, which is then converted catalytically to N2 and H2O).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413344</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268148840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What measurement do you use in Europe for 'mileage'?</p></div></blockquote><p>liters/100km. That's the point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What measurement do you use in Europe for 'mileage ' ? liters/100km .
That 's the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What measurement do you use in Europe for 'mileage'?liters/100km.
That's the point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31417326</id>
	<title>Re:If you post before this</title>
	<author>srmalloy</author>
	<datestamp>1268164920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have gotten fuel efficiency of 53 miles per gallon driving a 1983 Honda Civic FE hatchback on segments of a trip from San Diego to Portland carrying two people and luggage; design of the engine, drivetrain, and vehicle plays a part, but so does your driving patterns -- look at what hypermiling can do, for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have gotten fuel efficiency of 53 miles per gallon driving a 1983 Honda Civic FE hatchback on segments of a trip from San Diego to Portland carrying two people and luggage ; design of the engine , drivetrain , and vehicle plays a part , but so does your driving patterns -- look at what hypermiling can do , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have gotten fuel efficiency of 53 miles per gallon driving a 1983 Honda Civic FE hatchback on segments of a trip from San Diego to Portland carrying two people and luggage; design of the engine, drivetrain, and vehicle plays a part, but so does your driving patterns -- look at what hypermiling can do, for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416232</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1268159940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not use km/l?</p></div><p>This is strictly a usability issue, and if you carefully and realistically consider user needs you'll see that l/100 km is better.  Consider a car-buying couple:</p><p>"Hey, this one gets 10 mpg!"</p><p>"But this one gets 20 mpg!  It's twice as good."</p><p>"This one gets 30 mpg, that's even better!"</p><p>"Yeah, that's as big a difference as between 10 and 20.  Let's go for that one!"</p><p>Or:</p><p>"This one gets 10 l/100 km!"</p><p>"The one gets 5 l/100 km!  It's twice as good."</p><p>"This one gets 3.3 l/100km, that's even better!"</p><p>"Hmm... that's not such a big improvement.  Maybe the best value is at 5!"</p></div><p>Yes, but that only works in non-US countries.  Here's how that conversation would go in the US -</p><p>"Hey, this one gets 10 L/100 km!"</p><p>"What the fuck is a liter?"</p><p>"Hell if I know, I just read what's on the damn sign.  Anyone around here know what the hell a km is?!"</p><p>*Employees at car dealer* "It's uhm.......something you can get in Europe?"</p><p>"Fuck this, I'm buying a Ford!  Goddamn hippie punks and their L and km!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not use km/l ? This is strictly a usability issue , and if you carefully and realistically consider user needs you 'll see that l/100 km is better .
Consider a car-buying couple : " Hey , this one gets 10 mpg !
" " But this one gets 20 mpg !
It 's twice as good .
" " This one gets 30 mpg , that 's even better !
" " Yeah , that 's as big a difference as between 10 and 20 .
Let 's go for that one !
" Or : " This one gets 10 l/100 km !
" " The one gets 5 l/100 km !
It 's twice as good .
" " This one gets 3.3 l/100km , that 's even better ! " " Hmm.. .
that 's not such a big improvement .
Maybe the best value is at 5 !
" Yes , but that only works in non-US countries .
Here 's how that conversation would go in the US - " Hey , this one gets 10 L/100 km !
" " What the fuck is a liter ?
" " Hell if I know , I just read what 's on the damn sign .
Anyone around here know what the hell a km is ? !
" * Employees at car dealer * " It 's uhm.......something you can get in Europe ?
" " Fuck this , I 'm buying a Ford !
Goddamn hippie punks and their L and km !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not use km/l?This is strictly a usability issue, and if you carefully and realistically consider user needs you'll see that l/100 km is better.
Consider a car-buying couple:"Hey, this one gets 10 mpg!
""But this one gets 20 mpg!
It's twice as good.
""This one gets 30 mpg, that's even better!
""Yeah, that's as big a difference as between 10 and 20.
Let's go for that one!
"Or:"This one gets 10 l/100 km!
""The one gets 5 l/100 km!
It's twice as good.
""This one gets 3.3 l/100km, that's even better!""Hmm...
that's not such a big improvement.
Maybe the best value is at 5!
"Yes, but that only works in non-US countries.
Here's how that conversation would go in the US -"Hey, this one gets 10 L/100 km!
""What the fuck is a liter?
""Hell if I know, I just read what's on the damn sign.
Anyone around here know what the hell a km is?!
"*Employees at car dealer* "It's uhm.......something you can get in Europe?
""Fuck this, I'm buying a Ford!
Goddamn hippie punks and their L and km!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412994</id>
	<title>No Thanks</title>
	<author>TooMad</author>
	<datestamp>1268147340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The system itself is expensive on top of that you need a catalyst. They fail to mention how much the catalyst costs, or how it is added to the gas.  Do I have to carry around bottles of the catalyst and add it each time I fill the tank or is there a secondary tank?  How long does the catalyst last?  If it is a secondary tank then that's just one more thing to break down.  It all sounds counter-productive since if you can afford the upfront costs and whatever the additional ongoing costs are you can afford to spend 50\% more on gas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The system itself is expensive on top of that you need a catalyst .
They fail to mention how much the catalyst costs , or how it is added to the gas .
Do I have to carry around bottles of the catalyst and add it each time I fill the tank or is there a secondary tank ?
How long does the catalyst last ?
If it is a secondary tank then that 's just one more thing to break down .
It all sounds counter-productive since if you can afford the upfront costs and whatever the additional ongoing costs are you can afford to spend 50 \ % more on gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system itself is expensive on top of that you need a catalyst.
They fail to mention how much the catalyst costs, or how it is added to the gas.
Do I have to carry around bottles of the catalyst and add it each time I fill the tank or is there a secondary tank?
How long does the catalyst last?
If it is a secondary tank then that's just one more thing to break down.
It all sounds counter-productive since if you can afford the upfront costs and whatever the additional ongoing costs are you can afford to spend 50\% more on gas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415236</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Carbaholic</author>
	<datestamp>1268156160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely, You cannot make an engine more efficient than than the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot\_cycle" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Carnot Cycle.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>No matter how shiny their display is, they still can't break the second law of thermodynamics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely , You can not make an engine more efficient than than the Carnot Cycle .
[ wikipedia.org ] No matter how shiny their display is , they still ca n't break the second law of thermodynamics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely, You cannot make an engine more efficient than than the Carnot Cycle.
[wikipedia.org]No matter how shiny their display is, they still can't break the second law of thermodynamics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31417336</id>
	<title>quantum mechanics:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268164920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what is weired about this news articles is, that if you read about<br>some tech before it is actually on the market, you will never see it on the market.</p><p>but with new tech that actually gets build, you discover it in the show-room<br>or when you go for a test drive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what is weired about this news articles is , that if you read aboutsome tech before it is actually on the market , you will never see it on the market.but with new tech that actually gets build , you discover it in the show-roomor when you go for a test drive .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is weired about this news articles is, that if you read aboutsome tech before it is actually on the market, you will never see it on the market.but with new tech that actually gets build, you discover it in the show-roomor when you go for a test drive ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422390</id>
	<title>Re:Efficient or Green? You choose.</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1268149920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually you can have it both ways. The problem is in the equal length of compression and expansion cycles, which is far removed from the actual volumes of gas you have to deal with. The atkinson cycle engine was designed to solve this problem by having unequal length intake and expansion cycles. (some trick cam thing on the crankshaft to change stroke throw).
<br> <br>
This way you could have 10:1 intake compression, but a much longer expansion ratio (gasoline could go all the way to 18:1 which OFTOMH is the practial limit before diminishing returns). This approaches diesel-like efficiency without high peak pressure.
<br> <br>
Psuedo-atkinson cycle engines pop up in the Toyota Prius's engine, which as a 13:1 compression ratio, but an effective intake compression ratio of about 10:1
<br> <br>
You sacrafice power, this is where a power-adder is necessary, in a miller-cycle engine a supercharger is present to prevent reverse flow and take over some of the job of compressing intake charge - being more efficient at low ratios than a piston -(although compression ratio remains standard) in the case of the Prius the electric motor and a CVT transmission is there to boost off the line torque.
<br> <br>
But<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... IANAAE (I am not a automotive engineer)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually you can have it both ways .
The problem is in the equal length of compression and expansion cycles , which is far removed from the actual volumes of gas you have to deal with .
The atkinson cycle engine was designed to solve this problem by having unequal length intake and expansion cycles .
( some trick cam thing on the crankshaft to change stroke throw ) .
This way you could have 10 : 1 intake compression , but a much longer expansion ratio ( gasoline could go all the way to 18 : 1 which OFTOMH is the practial limit before diminishing returns ) .
This approaches diesel-like efficiency without high peak pressure .
Psuedo-atkinson cycle engines pop up in the Toyota Prius 's engine , which as a 13 : 1 compression ratio , but an effective intake compression ratio of about 10 : 1 You sacrafice power , this is where a power-adder is necessary , in a miller-cycle engine a supercharger is present to prevent reverse flow and take over some of the job of compressing intake charge - being more efficient at low ratios than a piston - ( although compression ratio remains standard ) in the case of the Prius the electric motor and a CVT transmission is there to boost off the line torque .
But ... IANAAE ( I am not a automotive engineer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually you can have it both ways.
The problem is in the equal length of compression and expansion cycles, which is far removed from the actual volumes of gas you have to deal with.
The atkinson cycle engine was designed to solve this problem by having unequal length intake and expansion cycles.
(some trick cam thing on the crankshaft to change stroke throw).
This way you could have 10:1 intake compression, but a much longer expansion ratio (gasoline could go all the way to 18:1 which OFTOMH is the practial limit before diminishing returns).
This approaches diesel-like efficiency without high peak pressure.
Psuedo-atkinson cycle engines pop up in the Toyota Prius's engine, which as a 13:1 compression ratio, but an effective intake compression ratio of about 10:1
 
You sacrafice power, this is where a power-adder is necessary, in a miller-cycle engine a supercharger is present to prevent reverse flow and take over some of the job of compressing intake charge - being more efficient at low ratios than a piston -(although compression ratio remains standard) in the case of the Prius the electric motor and a CVT transmission is there to boost off the line torque.
But ... IANAAE (I am not a automotive engineer)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412542</id>
	<title>STOP!  THIEF !! 'E TOOK MY IP !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268145180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The world has been unable to stop the open sharing of intellectual property on computer networks. It simply does not want to face the fact that it is so easy to share content. All efforts to police such activities are futile. The only way to keep digital files from being freely shared around the world is to prevent them from being sold in the first place.</p><p>Not digitizing the contents of magazines is the best way to protect their contents. Once vinyl recording was transferred to a digital format, the rest was history. The music industry was toast. The best copy protection for music now is live performance. In other words, if you want to protect something, don't digitize it. Yes, I guess this advice is a bit late.</p><p>So, what do we do now? If you talk to network administrators--the ones who look at the big, big picture--they'll tell you that the exchange of bootleg music and movies is chewing up more and more bandwidth every year. All of this in the face of various RIAA and MPAA (MAFIA) lawsuits. New laws and onerous ideas aren't helping.</p><p>At least the movie industry can up the ante. I don't care if you have a digital version at home or not, you're not going to get a copy of Avatar in IMAX--at least not one with the full impact of the big screen. So the industry has gone gah gah for 3D, hoping that the public will play along. So far it's working.</p><p>The music industry has no such plan B. Older media is even more clueless. Their plan B is to embrace the digital medium and see what happens. Here's will happen: 90 percent of the metro daily newspapers will stop printing. And their online counterparts will never make money. Ninety percent of all print magazines will either go out of business, consolidate, or go fully online, barely eking out a living</p><p>Print media cannot catch up with the fast-paced online world. Publications pay too much for Website design that is antiquated from the outset. They still think that it's viable to maintain layers and layers of management. There has never been a proper model for effectively advertising on the Internet in a magazine format. It's been one big experiment since CNet developed the functional banner ad in the mid-1990s.</p><p>Here's what newspapers and magazines should have done, beginning around 1998, when the writing was first on the wall. (Isn't hindsight great?)</p><p>1. Get ready to sell all real property--especially large office buildings.</p><p>2. Establish an online publication in direct competition with your print edition. Offer distinct and different content in each. Use open source software and hire a team of experts (two smart guys) to maintain and develop the software.</p><p>3. Never put the print publication online.</p><p>4. Get ready to fire everyone and shutter the print publication. Keep the best employees (as in content producers) and move them to the online publication.</p><p>5. Cut up middle managers. Sell property. Increase the writing staff to improve the product. Make everyone work from home over a VPN.</p><p>6. Pump up the print publication and get ready to sell or shutter it at a moment's notice if things begin to slide.</p><p>7. Establish and move all the online people into virtual offices and work-from-home environments. Sell everything. Go 100 percent virtual with eveything outsourced and backed up.</p><p>A. With a single layer of editorial control, establish a virtual office environment with telecommuting, teleconferencing, and a VPN ring for the employees who can work from anywhere in the world.</p><p>Z. Now run both the print and your online publication that way! And sell off the print version if it cannot be sustained as a stand alone property. Now you can go 100 percent online.</p><p>Of course there's more to it than this. And the idea of having no office and no management layers is something most American businesspeople just cannot cope with. You'd think media folks who spend most of their days hunkered over a computer could handle it, but they all seem to still yearn for that noisy newsroom of 1930s movies. That's just a relic o</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The world has been unable to stop the open sharing of intellectual property on computer networks .
It simply does not want to face the fact that it is so easy to share content .
All efforts to police such activities are futile .
The only way to keep digital files from being freely shared around the world is to prevent them from being sold in the first place.Not digitizing the contents of magazines is the best way to protect their contents .
Once vinyl recording was transferred to a digital format , the rest was history .
The music industry was toast .
The best copy protection for music now is live performance .
In other words , if you want to protect something , do n't digitize it .
Yes , I guess this advice is a bit late.So , what do we do now ?
If you talk to network administrators--the ones who look at the big , big picture--they 'll tell you that the exchange of bootleg music and movies is chewing up more and more bandwidth every year .
All of this in the face of various RIAA and MPAA ( MAFIA ) lawsuits .
New laws and onerous ideas are n't helping.At least the movie industry can up the ante .
I do n't care if you have a digital version at home or not , you 're not going to get a copy of Avatar in IMAX--at least not one with the full impact of the big screen .
So the industry has gone gah gah for 3D , hoping that the public will play along .
So far it 's working.The music industry has no such plan B. Older media is even more clueless .
Their plan B is to embrace the digital medium and see what happens .
Here 's will happen : 90 percent of the metro daily newspapers will stop printing .
And their online counterparts will never make money .
Ninety percent of all print magazines will either go out of business , consolidate , or go fully online , barely eking out a livingPrint media can not catch up with the fast-paced online world .
Publications pay too much for Website design that is antiquated from the outset .
They still think that it 's viable to maintain layers and layers of management .
There has never been a proper model for effectively advertising on the Internet in a magazine format .
It 's been one big experiment since CNet developed the functional banner ad in the mid-1990s.Here 's what newspapers and magazines should have done , beginning around 1998 , when the writing was first on the wall .
( Is n't hindsight great ? ) 1 .
Get ready to sell all real property--especially large office buildings.2 .
Establish an online publication in direct competition with your print edition .
Offer distinct and different content in each .
Use open source software and hire a team of experts ( two smart guys ) to maintain and develop the software.3 .
Never put the print publication online.4 .
Get ready to fire everyone and shutter the print publication .
Keep the best employees ( as in content producers ) and move them to the online publication.5 .
Cut up middle managers .
Sell property .
Increase the writing staff to improve the product .
Make everyone work from home over a VPN.6 .
Pump up the print publication and get ready to sell or shutter it at a moment 's notice if things begin to slide.7 .
Establish and move all the online people into virtual offices and work-from-home environments .
Sell everything .
Go 100 percent virtual with eveything outsourced and backed up.A .
With a single layer of editorial control , establish a virtual office environment with telecommuting , teleconferencing , and a VPN ring for the employees who can work from anywhere in the world.Z .
Now run both the print and your online publication that way !
And sell off the print version if it can not be sustained as a stand alone property .
Now you can go 100 percent online.Of course there 's more to it than this .
And the idea of having no office and no management layers is something most American businesspeople just can not cope with .
You 'd think media folks who spend most of their days hunkered over a computer could handle it , but they all seem to still yearn for that noisy newsroom of 1930s movies .
That 's just a relic o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world has been unable to stop the open sharing of intellectual property on computer networks.
It simply does not want to face the fact that it is so easy to share content.
All efforts to police such activities are futile.
The only way to keep digital files from being freely shared around the world is to prevent them from being sold in the first place.Not digitizing the contents of magazines is the best way to protect their contents.
Once vinyl recording was transferred to a digital format, the rest was history.
The music industry was toast.
The best copy protection for music now is live performance.
In other words, if you want to protect something, don't digitize it.
Yes, I guess this advice is a bit late.So, what do we do now?
If you talk to network administrators--the ones who look at the big, big picture--they'll tell you that the exchange of bootleg music and movies is chewing up more and more bandwidth every year.
All of this in the face of various RIAA and MPAA (MAFIA) lawsuits.
New laws and onerous ideas aren't helping.At least the movie industry can up the ante.
I don't care if you have a digital version at home or not, you're not going to get a copy of Avatar in IMAX--at least not one with the full impact of the big screen.
So the industry has gone gah gah for 3D, hoping that the public will play along.
So far it's working.The music industry has no such plan B. Older media is even more clueless.
Their plan B is to embrace the digital medium and see what happens.
Here's will happen: 90 percent of the metro daily newspapers will stop printing.
And their online counterparts will never make money.
Ninety percent of all print magazines will either go out of business, consolidate, or go fully online, barely eking out a livingPrint media cannot catch up with the fast-paced online world.
Publications pay too much for Website design that is antiquated from the outset.
They still think that it's viable to maintain layers and layers of management.
There has never been a proper model for effectively advertising on the Internet in a magazine format.
It's been one big experiment since CNet developed the functional banner ad in the mid-1990s.Here's what newspapers and magazines should have done, beginning around 1998, when the writing was first on the wall.
(Isn't hindsight great?)1.
Get ready to sell all real property--especially large office buildings.2.
Establish an online publication in direct competition with your print edition.
Offer distinct and different content in each.
Use open source software and hire a team of experts (two smart guys) to maintain and develop the software.3.
Never put the print publication online.4.
Get ready to fire everyone and shutter the print publication.
Keep the best employees (as in content producers) and move them to the online publication.5.
Cut up middle managers.
Sell property.
Increase the writing staff to improve the product.
Make everyone work from home over a VPN.6.
Pump up the print publication and get ready to sell or shutter it at a moment's notice if things begin to slide.7.
Establish and move all the online people into virtual offices and work-from-home environments.
Sell everything.
Go 100 percent virtual with eveything outsourced and backed up.A.
With a single layer of editorial control, establish a virtual office environment with telecommuting, teleconferencing, and a VPN ring for the employees who can work from anywhere in the world.Z.
Now run both the print and your online publication that way!
And sell off the print version if it cannot be sustained as a stand alone property.
Now you can go 100 percent online.Of course there's more to it than this.
And the idea of having no office and no management layers is something most American businesspeople just cannot cope with.
You'd think media folks who spend most of their days hunkered over a computer could handle it, but they all seem to still yearn for that noisy newsroom of 1930s movies.
That's just a relic o</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414948</id>
	<title>not too hard to reach 2020 mpg requirement</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1268155200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a half dozen things like this that will add 10\% mileage improvement each- dynamic injection, continuous variable transmission, regnerative brakes, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a half dozen things like this that will add 10 \ % mileage improvement each- dynamic injection , continuous variable transmission , regnerative brakes , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a half dozen things like this that will add 10\% mileage improvement each- dynamic injection, continuous variable transmission, regnerative brakes, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412466</id>
	<title>magnets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268144880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, if you put rare earth magnets on your fuel lines, it streamlines the molecules as they go into the engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , if you put rare earth magnets on your fuel lines , it streamlines the molecules as they go into the engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, if you put rare earth magnets on your fuel lines, it streamlines the molecules as they go into the engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968</id>
	<title>NOx and emissions?</title>
	<author>Matt\_Bennett</author>
	<datestamp>1268147280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the increased temperature of ignition, how does this perform with respect to emissions?  Since the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen, and with higher combustion temperature, the greater the NOx. I scanned TFA, but there doesn't seem to be anything on how this technology performs WRT combustion byproducts (by this, I mean beyond CO2 and H20).<p>

This reminds me of articles in Popular Science during the 70's touting columnist (and notable mechanic) Smokey Yunick and his super efficient engine that also used pre-heating of the intake charge, but I think the technology of fuel injection hadn't moved far enough to get to this level of direct injection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the increased temperature of ignition , how does this perform with respect to emissions ?
Since the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen , and with higher combustion temperature , the greater the NOx .
I scanned TFA , but there does n't seem to be anything on how this technology performs WRT combustion byproducts ( by this , I mean beyond CO2 and H20 ) .
This reminds me of articles in Popular Science during the 70 's touting columnist ( and notable mechanic ) Smokey Yunick and his super efficient engine that also used pre-heating of the intake charge , but I think the technology of fuel injection had n't moved far enough to get to this level of direct injection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the increased temperature of ignition, how does this perform with respect to emissions?
Since the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen, and with higher combustion temperature, the greater the NOx.
I scanned TFA, but there doesn't seem to be anything on how this technology performs WRT combustion byproducts (by this, I mean beyond CO2 and H20).
This reminds me of articles in Popular Science during the 70's touting columnist (and notable mechanic) Smokey Yunick and his super efficient engine that also used pre-heating of the intake charge, but I think the technology of fuel injection hadn't moved far enough to get to this level of direct injection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414342</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical</title>
	<author>Bobnova</author>
	<datestamp>1268153040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The efficiency of <i>modern</i> automobile internal combustion engines is around 30-33\%.  Obviously american cars still using pushrods are behind in this.<br>
The energy that is lost goes into the cooling system and out the exhaust.  Unless they are recapturing that heat they are claiming to get more energy out of burning gasoline then we currently get out of burning gasoline.  BTUs are BTUs, and there are only so many of them in gasoline.  You can't heat it and burn some of the BTUs to increase the number of BTUs it has when burnt.<br>
The all time record is 50\%, and that is a huge 103rpm diesel engine.<br> <br>
This concept has been done over and over again and made people a lot of money, while giving absolutely zero improvement.  It's a fake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The efficiency of modern automobile internal combustion engines is around 30-33 \ % .
Obviously american cars still using pushrods are behind in this .
The energy that is lost goes into the cooling system and out the exhaust .
Unless they are recapturing that heat they are claiming to get more energy out of burning gasoline then we currently get out of burning gasoline .
BTUs are BTUs , and there are only so many of them in gasoline .
You ca n't heat it and burn some of the BTUs to increase the number of BTUs it has when burnt .
The all time record is 50 \ % , and that is a huge 103rpm diesel engine .
This concept has been done over and over again and made people a lot of money , while giving absolutely zero improvement .
It 's a fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The efficiency of modern automobile internal combustion engines is around 30-33\%.
Obviously american cars still using pushrods are behind in this.
The energy that is lost goes into the cooling system and out the exhaust.
Unless they are recapturing that heat they are claiming to get more energy out of burning gasoline then we currently get out of burning gasoline.
BTUs are BTUs, and there are only so many of them in gasoline.
You can't heat it and burn some of the BTUs to increase the number of BTUs it has when burnt.
The all time record is 50\%, and that is a huge 103rpm diesel engine.
This concept has been done over and over again and made people a lot of money, while giving absolutely zero improvement.
It's a fake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416204</id>
	<title>Is this working?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268159820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay.. since I lost EVERYTHING I just typed thanks to slashdots faulty human verification system, I'll make it short.

"Pogue" - Look him up, this is nothing new. It is not snake oil, but the technology simply will never see the light of day. This is "vaporized gasoline", Liquids don't burn, that is why your generic car is between 10-33\% fuel efficient, the rest goes out the tail pipe as HC(unburnt fuel, Hydro carbon, ie. gasoline) or is lost as heat.

As far as you "BTU" people, I don't know where to start. The BTU table is so far off it isnt even funny. There is enough heat energy at the atomic level in a gallon of gasoline( or even water ), to nuke half the planet, so don't even get me started.

Now, anything that goes against the norm of about a 1-3\% increase in fuel eff. per year simply will not make the light of day. There are 1000's of inventions, all have been silenced. Toss it up to big oil, gov., or Ronald McDonald, whoever you think it is, I really don't care. Simply put, you the public will only see a general 1-3\% increase in fuel eff. per year and no more, anything more would upset the system.

fin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay.. since I lost EVERYTHING I just typed thanks to slashdots faulty human verification system , I 'll make it short .
" Pogue " - Look him up , this is nothing new .
It is not snake oil , but the technology simply will never see the light of day .
This is " vaporized gasoline " , Liquids do n't burn , that is why your generic car is between 10-33 \ % fuel efficient , the rest goes out the tail pipe as HC ( unburnt fuel , Hydro carbon , ie .
gasoline ) or is lost as heat .
As far as you " BTU " people , I do n't know where to start .
The BTU table is so far off it isnt even funny .
There is enough heat energy at the atomic level in a gallon of gasoline ( or even water ) , to nuke half the planet , so do n't even get me started .
Now , anything that goes against the norm of about a 1-3 \ % increase in fuel eff .
per year simply will not make the light of day .
There are 1000 's of inventions , all have been silenced .
Toss it up to big oil , gov. , or Ronald McDonald , whoever you think it is , I really do n't care .
Simply put , you the public will only see a general 1-3 \ % increase in fuel eff .
per year and no more , anything more would upset the system .
fin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay.. since I lost EVERYTHING I just typed thanks to slashdots faulty human verification system, I'll make it short.
"Pogue" - Look him up, this is nothing new.
It is not snake oil, but the technology simply will never see the light of day.
This is "vaporized gasoline", Liquids don't burn, that is why your generic car is between 10-33\% fuel efficient, the rest goes out the tail pipe as HC(unburnt fuel, Hydro carbon, ie.
gasoline) or is lost as heat.
As far as you "BTU" people, I don't know where to start.
The BTU table is so far off it isnt even funny.
There is enough heat energy at the atomic level in a gallon of gasoline( or even water ), to nuke half the planet, so don't even get me started.
Now, anything that goes against the norm of about a 1-3\% increase in fuel eff.
per year simply will not make the light of day.
There are 1000's of inventions, all have been silenced.
Toss it up to big oil, gov., or Ronald McDonald, whoever you think it is, I really don't care.
Simply put, you the public will only see a general 1-3\% increase in fuel eff.
per year and no more, anything more would upset the system.
fin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414034</id>
	<title>Re:Those "up to" words again.</title>
	<author>NevDull</author>
	<datestamp>1268151780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's good to know what the theoretical improvements are to see whether or not a goal is worth pursuing.

There's a huge difference in discussing the science and marketing a product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's good to know what the theoretical improvements are to see whether or not a goal is worth pursuing .
There 's a huge difference in discussing the science and marketing a product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's good to know what the theoretical improvements are to see whether or not a goal is worth pursuing.
There's a huge difference in discussing the science and marketing a product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413056</id>
	<title>Re:If you post before this</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1268147580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The VW Bluemotion outperforms the Prius<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... it has a conventional engine,  but it just loses all the weight possible, has a very efficient engine and is designed to be aerodynamic, and so it uses less fuel, and produces less CO2 than a hybrid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>I suspect they are "cheating" in the same way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The VW Bluemotion outperforms the Prius .... it has a conventional engine , but it just loses all the weight possible , has a very efficient engine and is designed to be aerodynamic , and so it uses less fuel , and produces less CO2 than a hybrid ....I suspect they are " cheating " in the same way ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The VW Bluemotion outperforms the Prius .... it has a conventional engine,  but it just loses all the weight possible, has a very efficient engine and is designed to be aerodynamic, and so it uses less fuel, and produces less CO2 than a hybrid ....I suspect they are "cheating" in the same way ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422030</id>
	<title>Re:NOx and emissions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268145780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With the increased temperature of ignition, how does this perform with respect to emissions?  Since the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen, and with higher combustion temperature, the greater the NOx. I scanned TFA, but there doesn't seem to be anything on how this technology performs WRT combustion byproducts (by this, I mean beyond CO2 and H20).</p><p>This reminds me of articles in Popular Science during the 70's touting columnist (and notable mechanic) Smokey Yunick and his super efficient engine that also used pre-heating of the intake charge, but I think the technology of fuel injection hadn't moved far enough to get to this level of direct injection.</p></div><p>Exactly. Here's a diagram and article on Smokey's hot vapor engine. He was also the first to use reverse cooling (where coolant goes to the heads first to have the greatest effect and allow for higher compression w/o detonation).<br>http://schou.dk/hvce/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the increased temperature of ignition , how does this perform with respect to emissions ?
Since the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen , and with higher combustion temperature , the greater the NOx .
I scanned TFA , but there does n't seem to be anything on how this technology performs WRT combustion byproducts ( by this , I mean beyond CO2 and H20 ) .This reminds me of articles in Popular Science during the 70 's touting columnist ( and notable mechanic ) Smokey Yunick and his super efficient engine that also used pre-heating of the intake charge , but I think the technology of fuel injection had n't moved far enough to get to this level of direct injection.Exactly .
Here 's a diagram and article on Smokey 's hot vapor engine .
He was also the first to use reverse cooling ( where coolant goes to the heads first to have the greatest effect and allow for higher compression w/o detonation ) .http : //schou.dk/hvce/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the increased temperature of ignition, how does this perform with respect to emissions?
Since the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen, and with higher combustion temperature, the greater the NOx.
I scanned TFA, but there doesn't seem to be anything on how this technology performs WRT combustion byproducts (by this, I mean beyond CO2 and H20).This reminds me of articles in Popular Science during the 70's touting columnist (and notable mechanic) Smokey Yunick and his super efficient engine that also used pre-heating of the intake charge, but I think the technology of fuel injection hadn't moved far enough to get to this level of direct injection.Exactly.
Here's a diagram and article on Smokey's hot vapor engine.
He was also the first to use reverse cooling (where coolant goes to the heads first to have the greatest effect and allow for higher compression w/o detonation).http://schou.dk/hvce/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416924</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't solve the oil problem</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1268163180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are ways to make gasoline without oil. At some point in the curves between gas prices and usage efficiency, it will become economical to use those methods in addition or in place of oil. In other words, the traditional ICE can be made into a renewable energy source, depending on how things work out.</p><p>Yes, there are problems with this approach. There are also problems with fuel cells, solar, wind, nuclear, or any other method you can think of. It is wise to invest in multiple methods and see what works out. The ultimate solution will likely be some combination of the above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are ways to make gasoline without oil .
At some point in the curves between gas prices and usage efficiency , it will become economical to use those methods in addition or in place of oil .
In other words , the traditional ICE can be made into a renewable energy source , depending on how things work out.Yes , there are problems with this approach .
There are also problems with fuel cells , solar , wind , nuclear , or any other method you can think of .
It is wise to invest in multiple methods and see what works out .
The ultimate solution will likely be some combination of the above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are ways to make gasoline without oil.
At some point in the curves between gas prices and usage efficiency, it will become economical to use those methods in addition or in place of oil.
In other words, the traditional ICE can be made into a renewable energy source, depending on how things work out.Yes, there are problems with this approach.
There are also problems with fuel cells, solar, wind, nuclear, or any other method you can think of.
It is wise to invest in multiple methods and see what works out.
The ultimate solution will likely be some combination of the above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412500</id>
	<title>Don't overlook other areas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268145000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For instance, what about doing this to cigarettes? Compress the tobacco, and heat it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance , what about doing this to cigarettes ?
Compress the tobacco , and heat it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance, what about doing this to cigarettes?
Compress the tobacco, and heat it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413998</id>
	<title>Interesting, but...</title>
	<author>o'reor</author>
	<datestamp>1268151660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... seems prone to shorten the lifespan of the engine.<p>

On the other hand, another improvement in internal combustion engines seems much more promising : <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable\_compression\_ratio" title="wikipedia.org">variable compression ratio</a> [wikipedia.org] as implemented in the <a href="http://www.mce-5.com/mce-5\_technology/index.htm" title="mce-5.com">MCE-5 engine</a> [mce-5.com], which could yield 15\% to 35\% improvements in mileage, while being cheaper to produce than equivalent diesel engines.</p><p> Several car brands have acquired licenses for those engines, and a few cars should equipped by 2015.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... seems prone to shorten the lifespan of the engine .
On the other hand , another improvement in internal combustion engines seems much more promising : variable compression ratio [ wikipedia.org ] as implemented in the MCE-5 engine [ mce-5.com ] , which could yield 15 \ % to 35 \ % improvements in mileage , while being cheaper to produce than equivalent diesel engines .
Several car brands have acquired licenses for those engines , and a few cars should equipped by 2015 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... seems prone to shorten the lifespan of the engine.
On the other hand, another improvement in internal combustion engines seems much more promising : variable compression ratio [wikipedia.org] as implemented in the MCE-5 engine [mce-5.com], which could yield 15\% to 35\% improvements in mileage, while being cheaper to produce than equivalent diesel engines.
Several car brands have acquired licenses for those engines, and a few cars should equipped by 2015.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422270</id>
	<title>partially oxidizing it</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1268148600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>partially oxidizing it</p></div><p>So... they burn it a bit outside the combustion chamber?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>partially oxidizing itSo... they burn it a bit outside the combustion chamber ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>partially oxidizing itSo... they burn it a bit outside the combustion chamber?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412448</id>
	<title>Not that impressive</title>
	<author>JiffyPop</author>
	<datestamp>1268144760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is a lot of effort to make a diesel engine run on gasoline...

I'd guess the 50\% improvement includes increasing the cylinder compression ratio and excludes the fuel pre-treatment.  This won't displace gasoline direct-injection systems in the market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a lot of effort to make a diesel engine run on gasoline.. . I 'd guess the 50 \ % improvement includes increasing the cylinder compression ratio and excludes the fuel pre-treatment .
This wo n't displace gasoline direct-injection systems in the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a lot of effort to make a diesel engine run on gasoline...

I'd guess the 50\% improvement includes increasing the cylinder compression ratio and excludes the fuel pre-treatment.
This won't displace gasoline direct-injection systems in the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414610</id>
	<title>This is an old scam (And KDawson fell for it)</title>
	<author>EQ</author>
	<datestamp>1268154060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development.</em> </p><p>So by heating the gasoline, I can ignore <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto\_cycle#The\_Otto\_cycle" title="wikipedia.org">The Otto Cycle</a> [wikipedia.org] and its associated <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic\_cycle#Otto\_cycle" title="wikipedia.org">Thermodynamic Cycle</a> [wikipedia.org]?  Amazing! All I need to do is pay these people money to suspend the laws of thermodynamics? KDawson will buy 2!</p><p>Can't these people even come up with an original scam of their own?  This is an old scam from the 70's. Its pretty much the same as "leaning out" the fuel/air mixture in an old carburetor based engine. Yes it works for "efficiency" but runs the engine hot so that it wears out more quickly, and reduces power. </p><p>KDawson is an idiot for falling for it. Fire him for repeatedly being an idiot and hire a real nerd, not another hipster dufus like him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber , says Mike Rocke , Transonic 's vice president of business development .
So by heating the gasoline , I can ignore The Otto Cycle [ wikipedia.org ] and its associated Thermodynamic Cycle [ wikipedia.org ] ?
Amazing ! All I need to do is pay these people money to suspend the laws of thermodynamics ?
KDawson will buy 2 ! Ca n't these people even come up with an original scam of their own ?
This is an old scam from the 70 's .
Its pretty much the same as " leaning out " the fuel/air mixture in an old carburetor based engine .
Yes it works for " efficiency " but runs the engine hot so that it wears out more quickly , and reduces power .
KDawson is an idiot for falling for it .
Fire him for repeatedly being an idiot and hire a real nerd , not another hipster dufus like him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development.
So by heating the gasoline, I can ignore The Otto Cycle [wikipedia.org] and its associated Thermodynamic Cycle [wikipedia.org]?
Amazing! All I need to do is pay these people money to suspend the laws of thermodynamics?
KDawson will buy 2!Can't these people even come up with an original scam of their own?
This is an old scam from the 70's.
Its pretty much the same as "leaning out" the fuel/air mixture in an old carburetor based engine.
Yes it works for "efficiency" but runs the engine hot so that it wears out more quickly, and reduces power.
KDawson is an idiot for falling for it.
Fire him for repeatedly being an idiot and hire a real nerd, not another hipster dufus like him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414168</id>
	<title>Increased engine efficiency helps hybrids too</title>
	<author>buback</author>
	<datestamp>1268152380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate when an article talks about some newfangled engine tech and says it's more efficient than hybrids. A perfect hybrid is going to be more efficient per mile than a perfect gas engine. Period.</p><p>Why? lots of reasons.<br>Regenerative breaking is a big one.<br>You can use a sterling engine or a turbine or diesel instead of a 4 stroke gasoline engine.<br>You can remove the transmission entirely and just have the engine connected to a generator, like the Volt is going to do.</p><p>And finally, any increase of efficiency you wring out of a gas engine can also be used in the gas engine of a hybrid.</p><p>(for naysayers, I'll admit that current batteries are heavy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate when an article talks about some newfangled engine tech and says it 's more efficient than hybrids .
A perfect hybrid is going to be more efficient per mile than a perfect gas engine .
Period.Why ? lots of reasons.Regenerative breaking is a big one.You can use a sterling engine or a turbine or diesel instead of a 4 stroke gasoline engine.You can remove the transmission entirely and just have the engine connected to a generator , like the Volt is going to do.And finally , any increase of efficiency you wring out of a gas engine can also be used in the gas engine of a hybrid .
( for naysayers , I 'll admit that current batteries are heavy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate when an article talks about some newfangled engine tech and says it's more efficient than hybrids.
A perfect hybrid is going to be more efficient per mile than a perfect gas engine.
Period.Why? lots of reasons.Regenerative breaking is a big one.You can use a sterling engine or a turbine or diesel instead of a 4 stroke gasoline engine.You can remove the transmission entirely and just have the engine connected to a generator, like the Volt is going to do.And finally, any increase of efficiency you wring out of a gas engine can also be used in the gas engine of a hybrid.
(for naysayers, I'll admit that current batteries are heavy)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413438</id>
	<title>Vapor...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268149200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds exactly like what Smokey Yunick claims to have engineered back in the day.

<a href="http://www.legendarycollectorcars.com/featured-vehicles/other-feature-cars/smokey-yunicks-hot-vapor-fiero-51-mpg-and-0-60-in-less-than-6-seconds-see-and-hear-it-run-in-our-exclusive-video/" title="legendaryc...orcars.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.legendarycollectorcars.com/featured-vehicles/other-feature-cars/smokey-yunicks-hot-vapor-fiero-51-mpg-and-0-60-in-less-than-6-seconds-see-and-hear-it-run-in-our-exclusive-video/</a> [legendaryc...orcars.com]

Basically it uses hot gas vapor to improve fuel efficiency.  It basically doubled the mileage of the Fiero's iron duke motor.

Link to diagram: <a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2738903116\_71abf7785c.jpg" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2738903116\_71abf7785c.jpg</a> [flickr.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds exactly like what Smokey Yunick claims to have engineered back in the day .
http : //www.legendarycollectorcars.com/featured-vehicles/other-feature-cars/smokey-yunicks-hot-vapor-fiero-51-mpg-and-0-60-in-less-than-6-seconds-see-and-hear-it-run-in-our-exclusive-video/ [ legendaryc...orcars.com ] Basically it uses hot gas vapor to improve fuel efficiency .
It basically doubled the mileage of the Fiero 's iron duke motor .
Link to diagram : http : //farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2738903116 \ _71abf7785c.jpg [ flickr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds exactly like what Smokey Yunick claims to have engineered back in the day.
http://www.legendarycollectorcars.com/featured-vehicles/other-feature-cars/smokey-yunicks-hot-vapor-fiero-51-mpg-and-0-60-in-less-than-6-seconds-see-and-hear-it-run-in-our-exclusive-video/ [legendaryc...orcars.com]

Basically it uses hot gas vapor to improve fuel efficiency.
It basically doubled the mileage of the Fiero's iron duke motor.
Link to diagram: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2738903116\_71abf7785c.jpg [flickr.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31417632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31418268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31417326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31421124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31417060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31426068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31418384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31419700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31421394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31419160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_0253242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31419160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31421394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31418384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31417060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412838
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415660
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414342
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31421124
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31414314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412936
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412896
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413576
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415464
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415988
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31426068
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422770
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416232
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413500
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422202
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413340
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413286
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413690
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31419700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31417632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31417326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31422546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31418268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31415500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31413882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31412928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_0253242.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_0253242.31416204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
