| Author | Message | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1213 Registered: 9-2009 |
Being a bit bored and having a good idea, here's disaster puzzle #2. Puerto Rico: unusual content, settling dirt, incorrect use of two different instruments. The nearest building with a certain feature is destroyed in a horrific explosion. | ||
| Hominid (Hominid)
New member Username: Hominid Post Number: 89 Registered: 1-2010 |
Earthquake relevant? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1216 Registered: 9-2009 |
Earthquake relevant? No. | ||
| Torquemada (Torquemada)
New member Username: Torquemada Post Number: 11 Registered: 1-2010 |
The instruments which were incorrectly used - would either or both of them, if correctly used, have warned about the disaster? Prevented it? Was the building destroyed because it had the certain feature? Was this a result of the disaster? Did it cause the disaster? Were both caused by the same thing? Was it unrelated? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1220 Registered: 9-2009 |
The instruments which were incorrectly used - would either or both of them, if correctly used, have warned about the disaster? Yes. Prevented it? Very probably. Was the building destroyed because it had the certain feature? Yes. Was this a result of the disaster? Did it cause the disaster? Thisish - it was a critical part in the chain of events that caused the disaster. Were both caused by the same thing? Was it unrelated? | ||
| Torquemada (Torquemada)
New member Username: Torquemada Post Number: 15 Registered: 1-2010 |
Was the explosion a natural risk of a building with this certain feature (e.g. oil refinery), or was it caused by something entirely outside the building's normal activities? Is fire relevant? Weather? "unusual content" - something that shouldn't have been where it was? Or something that isn't normally found where it was? Or something else entirely? Were the following related: content and dirt content and instruments content and building dirt and instruments dirt and building instruments and building | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1222 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was the explosion a natural risk of a building with this certain feature (e.g. oil refinery), No. or was it caused by something entirely outside the building's normal activities? This. Is fire relevant? Only on the sense that the explosion is an explosive burning (as opposed to a rupture of a pressurized vessel). Weather? No. "unusual content" - something that shouldn't have been where it was? This definitely happened... Or something that isn't normally found where it was? ...but this is closer to what I'm talking about. Or something else entirely? To clarify: The unusual content got from where it was supposed to be, to a place it shouldn't have been. If it had been the usual content, the disaster probably wouldn't have happened. Were the following related: content and dirt content and instruments content and building dirt and instruments dirt and building instruments and building They are all related in different ways, try finding out more about the nature of the various things. | ||
| Torquemada (Torquemada)
New member Username: Torquemada Post Number: 50 Registered: 1-2010 |
Did natural events cause the disaster? Make it worse? Prevent or hamper detection of the problem? Was human error involved in any of these ways? Mechanical failure? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1245 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did natural events cause the disaster? Make it worse? Prevent or hamper detection of the problem? No to all (except the settling dirt causing something). Was human error involved in any of these ways? Mechanical failure? Mechanical failure caused the conditions for the disaster. Human error prevented the detection of these conditions. | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 2258 Registered: 5-2003 |
Did the dirt settle quickly or over a long period? Poor construction techniques relevant? Are the instruments electronic or analog? Was the disaster foreseeable? Gunpowder relevant? Dynamite? Some other explosive? If the nearest building had not had the certain feature, would it have been destroyed? In an explosion? Were people harmed? Killed? Era relevant? Time of day? Terrain? Weather? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1249 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did the dirt settle quickly or over a long period? This. Poor construction techniques relevant? Yes. Are the instruments electronic This. or analog? Was the disaster foreseeable? Yes. Gunpowder relevant? Dynamite? Some other explosive? DYOD of "explosive". If the nearest building had not had the certain feature, would it have been destroyed? In an explosion? FA: The nearest building was not destroyed, the building that was destroyed was down the street. If there had been no buildings with this feature in the area, there probably wouldn't have been an explosion. Were people harmed? Killed? Yes to both. Era relevant? Modern day. Time of day? No. Terrain? City, flat. Weather? No. | ||
| Torquemada (Torquemada)
New member Username: Torquemada Post Number: 74 Registered: 1-2010 |
Would the instruments, if used correctly, have ensured that nothing out of the ordinary happened at all? Or would they only have (probably) avoided a disaster when the unusual thing happened? Anything to do with volcanoes? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1253 Registered: 9-2009 |
Would the instruments, if used correctly, have ensured that nothing out of the ordinary happened at all? Or would they only have (probably) avoided a disaster when the unusual thing happened? This. Anything to do with volcanoes? No. | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 651 Registered: 6-2008 |
Is the "certain feature" part of the architectural design of the building? the plumbing? heating? or electrical system? some object or material stored in the building but not part of it? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1275 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is the "certain feature" part of the architectural design of the building? This. the plumbing? heating? or electrical system? some object or material stored in the building but not part of it? | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 659 Registered: 6-2008 |
Was the explosion cause by a (natural) gas pipe? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1278 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was the explosion cause by a (natural) gas pipe? Gas, but not natural gas. Worth exploring. | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 660 Registered: 6-2008 |
Another case of exploding gasoline? or maybe propane? for a barbecue or other cooking apparatus? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1279 Registered: 9-2009 |
Another case of exploding gasoline? or maybe propane? This. for a barbecue or other cooking apparatus? It was used for cooking. | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 689 Registered: 6-2008 |
Were the instruments used in the construction of the building that exploded? in preparing the dirt prior to building the foundation? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1345 Registered: 9-2009 |
Were the instruments used in the construction of the building that exploded? in preparing the dirt prior to building the foundation? Neither. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1367 Registered: 9-2009 |
<b>Recap with hint: The propane is the "unusual content" - normally natural gas is used in this specific application. If it had been natural gas instead of propane, the disaster wouldn't have occured. The propane leaked because of settling dirt and poor construction. An architectural feature of a building down the street set the conditions right for a disastrous explosion that destroyed it. Buildings without this feature were not vulnerable. Two different instruments that could have detected the conditions leading up to the disaster were used incorrectly, leading to the conditions going undetected. To be determined: What architectural feature did this building have? Where did the propane go? Why would natural gas not have caused the disaster? What were the instruments, and how were they used incorrectly? And by whom? | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 705 Registered: 6-2008 |
Was the architectural feature part of the foundation? the basement? the ground floor? upper floors? From your hints, I gather that it wasn't that the settling dirt caused propane stored in the building down the street from it (the settling) to explode, but that the propane escaped at the location of the settling dirt, and traveled to the building down the street? If so, did it travel underground? through a sewer? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1427 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was the architectural feature part of the foundation? the basement? Yes, in fact it was the basement, the other buildings didn't have basements. the ground floor? upper floors? From your hints, I gather that it wasn't that the settling dirt caused propane stored in the building down the street from it (the settling) to explode, but that the propane escaped at the location of the settling dirt, and traveled to the building down the street? this is correct. If so, did it travel underground? This.through a sewer? No. Good questions! | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 708 Registered: 6-2008 |
Did the propane enter the building down the street through the basement? Was there some type of broken pipe or device in the basement that allowed it to come in. Did the propane travel underground through a man-made conduit of some type (e.g. storm drain, pipe with electrical wires)? or through a naturally occurring space (e.g. a cave)? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1462 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did the propane enter the building down the street through the basement? Yes. Was there some type of broken pipe or device in the basement that allowed it to come in. Noish, it came in along the pipes and cables entering the building through the basement wall. Did the propane travel underground through a man-made conduit of some type (e.g. storm drain, pipe with electrical wires)? or through a naturally occurring space (e.g. a cave)? <b>Neither, it traveled through the soil itself. It did travel easier where pipes and cables were buried. Now you know what the gas was and how it got into the basement of the building. But the explosion could still have been avoided. What happened? | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 713 Registered: 6-2008 |
I'll re-ask my question from your other puzzle: Did the propane explode because it contacted a heat source? an electrical wire? Was there any malfunction or incident that caused the propane to ignite? or was it simply that the propane was in the wrong place at the wrong time? Would the instruments have detected the gas leak? would their correct use have resulted in something being altered in the basement that would have prevented the explosion? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 1509 Registered: 9-2009 |
I'll re-ask my question from your other puzzle: Did the propane explode because it contacted a heat source? an electrical wire? This. Was there any malfunction or incident that caused the propane to ignite? This. or was it simply that the propane was in the wrong place at the wrong time? Would the instruments have detected the gas leak? Yes indeed. would their correct use have resulted in something being altered in the basement that would have prevented the explosion? Yes! Now you have all the important pieces, it's time to post a **************SPOILER***************** The settling dirt broke a pipe carrying propane. Being heavier than air it accumulated underground, and eventually leaked into the nearest basement. The owners (a shoe store) complained about the smell, and the gas company paid them several visits. But their instrument showed no gas leaks, which meant nothing was done and the gas kept accumulating and eventually ignited. The gas company had two instruments. One was to be stuck into the ground to detect the gas, but they used far too shallow measuring holes so the propane underground went undetected. The other instrument was supposed to detect the gas in the air inside the building, but it had to be calibrated against fresh air when turned on. Unfortunately, each time it was turned on inside the store, where the air was contaminated by propane, got miscalibrated and did not detect the gas. After the explosion, the gas company denied responsibility, and (among other things) suggested that sewer gas (methane) had gotten into the building. Methane is lighter than air, the clue that it was really the heavy propane that exploded came when shoe prints were found on the underside of one of the horizontal beams in the basement, indicating that the explosion had started at the floor and thrown the shoe store's stock upwards with great velocity. The Wikipedia article summarizes everything very nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberto_Vidal_Explosion |
