| Author | Message | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 203 Registered: 9-2009 |
It's valuable because of the bombs. | ||
| Fleemco198 (Fleemco198)
New member Username: Fleemco198 Post Number: 60 Registered: 9-2009 |
IT=a container? Structure? Specific location? Does it contain the bombs? Do the bombs go Kaboom? Bombs=explosive device? Figurative expression? Valuable=measure of price? priceless? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 213 Registered: 9-2009 |
IT=a container? Structure? Noish. Specific location? No to the rest. Does it contain the bombs? No. Do the bombs go Kaboom? Yes. Bombs=explosive device? This. Figurative expression? Valuable=measure of price? This. priceless? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 926 Registered: 7-2009 |
Are the bombs there (where "it" is)? Were they there in the past? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 214 Registered: 9-2009 |
Are the bombs there (where "it" is)? Were they there in the past? No to both. | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 928 Registered: 7-2009 |
Was "it" ever where the bombs are? Where they were? Does it protect against bomb blasts? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 216 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was "it" ever where the bombs are? Where they were? Does it protect against bomb blasts? No to all. | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 933 Registered: 7-2009 |
Is it artwork? Does it resemble a bomb? Symbolize a bomb? Is it something that belonged to someone who was killed by a bomb? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 218 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is it artwork? Does it resemble a bomb? Symbolize a bomb? Is it something that belonged to someone who was killed by a bomb? No to all. The connection is much more...lateral ;-) | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 935 Registered: 7-2009 |
Are the bombs specific bombs? Or just bombs in general? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 219 Registered: 9-2009 |
Are the bombs specific bombs? Thisish. Or just bombs in general? No. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 402 Registered: 5-2009 |
Are the bombs atomic bombs? Other bombs for military use? Bombs built by terrorists? Other criminals? Do the bombs still exist? Or did they explode in the past? Are just exploding at the relevant time for the puzzle statement? Did/do the bombs get destroyed otherwise than by explosion (e.g. by getting defused)? Is "it" tangible? solid? liquid? gaseous? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 220 Registered: 9-2009 |
Are the bombs atomic bombs? This. Other bombs for military use? Bombs built by terrorists? Other criminals? Do the bombs still exist? Or did they explode in the past? This. Are just exploding at the relevant time for the puzzle statement? Did/do the bombs get destroyed otherwise than by explosion (e.g. by getting defused)? Is "it" tangible? Yes. solid? This. liquid? gaseous? | ||
| Peter365 (Peter365)
New member Username: Peter365 Post Number: 2217 Registered: 1-2007 |
Were the Atom bombs the ones dropped on Horishima and Nagasaki or were they test detonations? p.s. is the other puzzle a different one or just a double post? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 221 Registered: 9-2009 |
Were the Atom bombs the ones dropped on Horishima and Nagasaki or were they test detonations? Both. p.s. is the other puzzle a different one or just a double post? Double post, oops again. | ||
| Peter365 (Peter365)
New member Username: Peter365 Post Number: 2218 Registered: 1-2007 |
Radioactivity relevant? Is something made more valuable by atomic detonations in general or only in specific cases? You should ask a mod to delete the other puzzle. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 222 Registered: 9-2009 |
Radioactivity relevant? Yes. Is something made more valuable by atomic detonations in general or only in specific cases? In general - almost, there's a specific kind that does NOT help. | ||
| Probably_monty_hall (Probably_monty_hall)
New member Username: Probably_monty_hall Post Number: 13 Registered: 10-2009 |
Is there only one "it"? Multiple? Is location relevant? USA? Did "it" exist before the bombs exploded? Does "it" exist now? Does "it" have a purpose unrelated to the bombs? Does "it" have value apart from the bombs? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 226 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is there only one "it"? Multiple? Multiple - in a sense. Is location relevant? USA? Location: Europe, but not that relevant. Did "it" exist before the bombs exploded? Does "it" exist now? Does "it" have a purpose unrelated to the bombs? Yes to all. Does "it" have value apart from the bombs? FA - "it" doesn't have any bombs. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 407 Registered: 5-2009 |
A specific kind of atomic detonations doesn't help: Explosion of fusion bombs? Neutron bombs? A specific kind of radioactive radiation relevant? A specific radioactive element/isotope? Is "it" moveable? Part of the ground? Not part of the ground but fixed to it (like a building)? Does "valuable" mean that you can get a lot of money for it? Or more that it is especially useful? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 228 Registered: 9-2009 |
A specific kind of atomic detonations doesn't help: Explosion of fusion bombs? Neutron bombs? A specific kind of radioactive radiation relevant? A specific radioactive element/isotope? None of these. But radioactive elements/isotopes are involved. Is "it" moveable? Not anymore. Part of the ground? Not part of the ground but fixed to it Thisish. (like a building But not this.)? Does "valuable" mean that you can get a lot of money for it? Or more that it is especially useful? This. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 408 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is "it" man-made? Natural? Would "it" also be somewhat useful if atomic bombs never existed nor were likely to exist in future? Can "it" directly be useful for (nearly) everyone? Only for people with a specific occupation? Hobby? Only for people living in a specific region? People having a specific problem? People owning certain things? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 230 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is "it" man-made? This. Natural? Would "it" also be somewhat useful if atomic bombs never existed nor were likely to exist in future? No. Can "it" directly be useful for (nearly) everyone? Only for people with a specific occupation? Thisish. Hobby? Only for people living in a specific region? People having a specific problem? Yes, for svv of "problem". People owning certain things? Noish. All else no. What does "svv" stand for? I can only infer what it means from other puzzles. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 412 Registered: 5-2009 |
svv stands for "sufficiently vague value" Is "it" useful for scientists? Health professionals? Is radioactive fallout relevant? Maybe radioactive particles from atomic explosions interfere with some measurements? Or some chemical reactions? Are underground atomic tests the kind of explosions not helping to make "it" valuable? "It" existed before the bombs exploded. So it was originally made for another purpose than that which makes it valuable now? Mining relevant? Fortifications? Water supply? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 231 Registered: 9-2009 |
svv stands for "sufficiently vague value" Thanks (: Is "it" useful for scientists? This. Health professionals? Is radioactive fallout relevant? Maybe radioactive particles from atomic explosions interfere with some measurements? Yes! Or some chemical reactions? Are underground atomic tests the kind of explosions not helping to make "it" valuable? Correct. "It" existed before the bombs exploded. So it was originally made for another purpose than that which makes it valuable now? Yes. Mining relevant? Fortifications? Water supply? Neither. | ||
| Fleemco198 (Fleemco198)
New member Username: Fleemco198 Post Number: 64 Registered: 9-2009 |
what size is the it? atomic? microscopic? insect? human? planetary? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 232 Registered: 9-2009 |
what size is the it? atomic? microscopic? insect? human? planetary? Bigger than human, smaller than a planet. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 415 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is it something located underground? under water? Bigger than human - can humans go inside it? Do some humans so regularly? Maybe the scientists? Are the measurements measurements of radioactivity? Other radiation? The frequency of certain isotopes? | ||
| Probably_monty_hall (Probably_monty_hall)
New member Username: Probably_monty_hall Post Number: 16 Registered: 10-2009 |
So is "it" some measuring device that is not affected by radioactive particles? Measuring quantities of what size (use above list, and add galactic)? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 233 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is it something located underground? under water? This. Bigger than human - can humans go inside it? Yes. Do some humans so regularly? They probably do - but usually not related to the purpose of the puzzle, nor to the original purpose of "it". Maybe the scientists? No/irr Are the measurements measurements of radioactivity? This. Other radiation? The frequency of certain isotopes? Possibly these as well. So is "it" some measuring device that is not affected by radioactive particles? No, "it" is not a measuring device, though measuring devices are relevant. Measuring quantities of what size (use above list, and add galactic)? FA, see above. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 417 Registered: 5-2009 |
Shipwrecks? Parts of disused maritime platforms? Radiochronology relevant? Maybe parts of shipwrecks are used to get material of a known age that wasn't exposed to fallout? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 234 Registered: 9-2009 |
Shipwrecks? This! Parts of disused maritime platforms? Radiochronology relevant? No. Maybe parts of shipwrecks are used to get material of a known age No, but... that wasn't exposed to fallout? ...this is important. However it's a bit more complicated. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 420 Registered: 5-2009 |
So it is relevant that (sufficiently old) shipwrecks weren't exposed to radioactive fallout? Do scientists use parts of the wrecks? Or the whole wrecks? Do they use them to compare their properties to something else? Is a certain material found in shipwrecks relevant? Wood? Other organic material? Metal? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 235 Registered: 9-2009 |
So it is relevant that (sufficiently old) shipwrecks weren't exposed to radioactive fallout? Yesish...it's more complicated than simple exposure. Do scientists use parts of the wrecks? this. Or the whole wrecks? Do they use them to compare their properties to something else? No. Is a certain material found in shipwrecks relevant? Wood? Other organic material? Metal? This. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 423 Registered: 5-2009 |
Certain elements/isotopes are relevant. Is their concentration in the wrecks' metal relevant? Maybe that they don't occure there at all? Are the relevant elements/isotopes radioactive? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 240 Registered: 9-2009 |
Certain elements/isotopes are relevant. Is their concentration in the wrecks' metal relevant? Maybe that they don't occure there at all? Are the relevant elements/isotopes radioactive? All correct, you're making progress (: | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1624 Registered: 5-2003 |
Anything to do with the USS Indianapolis? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 262 Registered: 9-2009 |
Anything to do with the USS Indianapolis? No. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 393 Registered: 3-2004 |
Is "it" a submarine? some other vehicle? or is "it" located on the sea bottom? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 280 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is "it" a submarine? some other vehicle? or is "it" located on the sea bottom? "It" describes, depending on context, either: some ship wrecks (at the bottom of the sea, yes), or a metal found in said wrecks. There are no subs among the relevant wrecks. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 400 Registered: 3-2004 |
The metal in the ship wrecks is now more valuable than if no atomic bombs with fallout had exploded? because the fallout has made similar metal on land useless for a specific purpose? a scientific purpose? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 282 Registered: 9-2009 |
The metal in the ship wrecks is now more valuable than if no atomic bombs with fallout had exploded? Yes. because the fallout has made similar metal on land useless for a specific purpose? FA - it would've worked if the same metal was on land as well. It's just that shipwrecks are usually found underwater. a scientific purpose? Yes. The exact purpose is irrelevant, suffice to say it requires that the metal is free from radiation. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 403 Registered: 3-2004 |
So if the metal had been on land when the fallout(s) occurred it would not be useless for the scientific purpose? I thought the water shielded from the fallout...(?) | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 287 Registered: 9-2009 |
So if the metal had been on land when the fallout(s) occurred it would not be useless for the scientific purpose? I thought the water shielded from the fallout...(?) No, shielding effects (of water or otherwise) are irrelevant. Hint: Making new metal doesn't solve the problem, explore. It also helps if you figure out which metal it is. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1294 Registered: 11-2008 |
Gold? Iron? Is it a pure metal? Or an alloy? Is the material valuable because there is only small amount of it (contained in shipwrecks) which has not been exposed to the radiation? and therefore does/does not contain something? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 291 Registered: 9-2009 |
Gold? Iron? Thisish. Is it a pure metal? Or an alloy? It's an alloy. Is the material valuable because there is only small amount of it (contained in shipwrecks) which has not been exposed to the radiation? Yesish - for svv of "small". And actually "useful" is a better word than "valuable" now that I think about it. and therefore does/does not contain something? Yes, it does not contain radioactive isotopes. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1297 Registered: 11-2008 |
Steel then? Is the exact type of it important? So is it used to be compared with similar metal (steel?) which had been exposed to radiation and DOES contain isotopes? Are we to find out the purpose for which this comparison is made? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 292 Registered: 9-2009 |
Steel then? Yes. Is the exact type of it important? No. So is it used to be compared with similar metal (steel?) which had been exposed to radiation and DOES contain isotopes? Are we to find out the purpose for which this comparison is made?No to all. PARTIAL $poiler: The wrecks are from the scuttling of the German High Seas Fleet in Scapa Flow after WWI, and is the world's largest deposit of radiation free steel. It is used where steel is required in radiation sensitive instrumentation - for instance, a piece of this steel is now on the moon thanks to the Apollo missions. The remaining question is: Why can't we just make more radiation free steel? You can solve it with a little more lateral puzzling, and/or knowledge of steel manufacture (: | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1302 Registered: 11-2008 |
Because steel contains carbon? and every single piece of carbon in the world has been impregnated with radiation after the explosion of the A-bombs? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 293 Registered: 9-2009 |
Because steel contains carbon? and every single piece of carbon in the world has been impregnated with radiation after the explosion of the A-bombs? No the carbon is fine, but you're OTRT. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1303 Registered: 11-2008 |
Am I OTRT because of the carbon? Because of the iron (I mean, if you just swapped iron for carbon in my previous question)? Another additive to steel? Is it basically impossible to produce radiation-free steel now because there is a component to it which cannot be freed of radiation as the result of the bombs going off? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 294 Registered: 9-2009 |
Am I OTRT because of the carbon? Because of the iron (I mean, if you just swapped iron for carbon in my previous question)? Another additive to steel? This - for svv of "additive". All of this stuff is contaminated because of atmospheric testing. Is it basically impossible to produce radiation-free steel now because there is a component to it which cannot be freed of radiation as the result of the bombs going off? Correct. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1316 Registered: 11-2008 |
Are we to find the precise component of the steel? What is left for us to find now? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 314 Registered: 9-2009 |
No great reason to keep this one going I guess. ****SPOILER**** Steelmaking uses large amounts of air. Because of atmoshperic nuclear testing, this means trace radioactive elements get incorporated into all steel made after WWII. This makes steel from the old wrecks useful in certain sensitive applications, where the small amount of radiation would cause problems. Thanks for playing! I'm still new at this, but it's fun and I'm learning (: | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1317 Registered: 11-2008 |
Thank you for a nice puzzle, Galfisk! It was fun for me too, and moreover, I learned a new info - I had no idea about the radiation-free stuff. |
