[Noel] Playing with fire. Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - September 2009 » [Noel] Playing with fire. « Previous Next »

Author Message
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 460
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 8:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob makes a product that saves lives. However, the key material in the product is very dangerous. There are two methods that Bob can use to make the product safe. The first method is simple but counterintuitive - destroy the dangerous material. The second method is more complicated. What is the product, and how does Bob make it safe?
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1016
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 8:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Nitroglycerine?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 461
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 8:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Nitroglycerine? no
Sugarshane (Sugarshane)
New member
Username: Sugarshane

Post Number: 207
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 8:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

is the product something anyone can buy? or do you have to be qualified in some way to buy it? is the product related to the medical field? is it a solid? liquid? gas? is it eatable? the methods you refer to- does bob actually use both methods? the first? second? if bob destroys the dangerous material that is used in the product as suggested in the first method, is the product still usable? how is the product dangerous- is it flammable? is it sharp? is it dangerous to everyone? children? small parts involved? plastic? anything that may cause cancer? is the products sole purpose to save lives? is it a flotation device of some kind?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 463
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

is the product something anyone can buy? no or do you have to be qualified in some way to buy it? yes is the product related to the medical field? yes
is it a solid? liquid? this one gas? is it eatable? no
the methods you refer to- does bob actually use both methods? yes, but only one at a time (i.e. when he makes a unit of the product using method 1, he will not use method 2 on that unit, and vice versa) the first? second? if bob destroys the dangerous material that is used in the product as suggested in the first method, is the product still usable? yes how is the product dangerous- is it flammable? no is it sharp? no is it dangerous to everyone? yes children? so yes
small parts involved? plastic? anything that may cause cancer? none of the above
is the products sole purpose to save lives? yes is it a flotation device of some kind? no
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1018
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

is the primary product poisonous? is it an acid?
Sugarshane (Sugarshane)
New member
Username: Sugarshane

Post Number: 209
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

so is the product in fact medication? to treat something specific? to treat multiple illnesses? is this a common medication? still used today? does this save human lives? animals? both?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 464
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

is the primary product poisonous? no is it an acid? I don't know, but regardless of whether it is acidic or basic, the pH is not dangerous
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1020
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

is the primary product explosive? frozen? does its temperature matter?

Is it dangerous when touched? ingested? looked at? radiation involved?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 465
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

so is the product in fact medication? yes to treat something specific? yope to treat multiple illnesses? no

is this a common medication? yes still used today? yes does this save human lives? animals? both
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 466
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

is the primary product FA - the product itself is safe if made properly, so I'll assume these questions refer to the dangerous material. If I'm wrong, let me know. explosive? no frozen? no does its temperature matter? yes

Is it dangerous when touched? yes ingested? yes looked at? no radiation involved? no

for clarity re: your previous questions - neither the product nor the dangerous material are poisonous nor dangerously acidic.
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1021
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By "primary product" I meant the dangerous base the final product is made of. Sorry for the confusion. Could we call it "base" from now on to avoid confusion?

If so, is the base hot? Or does its temperature matter only in relation to something else?

Can we define it as a pure chemical element (one of the Periodic Table of Elements)?
Sugarshane (Sugarshane)
New member
Username: Sugarshane

Post Number: 210
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

penicillin relevant? insulin?
Sugarshane (Sugarshane)
New member
Username: Sugarshane

Post Number: 211
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 9:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

is fire involved in making the product safe? does he burn out the dangerous material? is the dangerous material natural? man made?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 467
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 10:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By "primary product" I meant the dangerous base the final product is made of. Sorry for the confusion. Could we call it "base" from now on to avoid confusion? sure.

If so, is the base hot? no Or does its temperature matter only in relation to something else? no, it is the temperature of the base that matters. However, beware FA.
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 468
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 10:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

penicillin relevant? no insulin?no

is fire involved in making the product safe? no does he burn out the dangerous material? no is the dangerous material natural?yes man made?no or noish
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1022
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 10:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What about the Table of Elements?

Is the temperature of the base lower than the usual temperature of human body?
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1023
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 11:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the temperature of the base constant all over the process of its destruction?

Is the destruction chemical? Physical?

Is the final product meant to be ingested? Used as ointment? Does it cure illnesses? Or is it rather used for diagnostics? Laser involved? Mercury? Thermometer?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 228
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 12:05 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the product used for vaccination? as an antidote? for diagnostics?

Is anything of the following used in the production process: animals? plants? fungi? radioactive material? blood? bacteria? viruses? eggs? petrol? liquidified/solidified gas?

Would direct contact with the dangerous product during the production process be likely to kill you? Injure you? Make you ill?

Is the final product a medicament? Medical equipment?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 469
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 1:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What about the Table of Elements? I'm not sure what you're asking. But I think the answer is no.

Is the temperature of the base lower than the usual temperature of human body? yes, it should be

Is the temperature of the base constant all over the process of its destruction? Good question. Yes, it should be, using current methods (both 1 and 2), and it must be for method 2. But historically (a precursor to method 1 in the puzzle), no.

Is the destruction chemical? yes Physical? and yes

Is the final product meant to be ingested? noish Used as ointment? no Does it cure illnesses? sometimes, but this isn't the primary purpose Or is it rather used for diagnostics? no Laser involved?no Mercury? sometimes Thermometer?yes, but only to monitor the temperature

Is the product used for vaccination? yes as an antidote? no for diagnostics? no

Is anything of the following used in the production process: animals? method 1: yope - cultured animal cells; method2: yes. Don't focus on this, as it's not important. plants?no fungi?no radioactive material? no blood?no bacteria? no viruses?yes eggs?method2:yes. But not important. petrol?no liquidified/solidified gas? not that I know of

Would direct contact with the dangerous product during the production process be likely to kill you? It would kill me or probably you. Not Bob. Injure you?no Make you ill? Yes for me or probably you. Not Bob.

Is the final product a medicament? no Medical equipment?no
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1026
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 7:01 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Will it NOT kill Bob because he is alrady immunized?

Is the base a virus? If so, is it somehow weakened to provide protection but not to be strong enough to make you ill/kill you?

Does the danger involved consist in contracting a disease? Smallpox involved? Tuberculosis?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 472
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 1:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Will it NOT kill Bob because he is already immunized? right. vaccine manufacturers get vaccinated in case of an accident

Is the base a virus? yes If so, is it somehow weakened to provide protection but not to be strong enough to make you ill/kill you?yesish

Does the danger involved consist in contracting a disease? yes Smallpox involved? Tuberculosis?neither
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 229
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 2:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Rabies?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 476
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 3:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Rabies? yes

Now, you could probably google the answer easily from this point (or recall the general idea if you've ever taken a class that talked about vaccines) but where's the fun in that? I'm not looking for technical explanations, of course, just the general concepts, which you are perfectly able to figure out without help from google
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1035
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 3:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

OK, I promise not to google and to rely only on my sieve of a memory. The holes in it are quite sizeable so don't be afraid the fun will be spoyled soon.

Would the second method consist in using a live vaccine?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 480
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 4:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Would the second method consist in using a live vaccine? yes
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1037
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 5:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Filtered" through another animal?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 482
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 5:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Filtered" through another animal? no
Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member
Username: Jenburdoo

Post Number: 1450
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 8:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The live vaccine of a different but related disease?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 483
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 2:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The live vaccine of a different but related disease? yope - this idea is worth exploring
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1052
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 5:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does the second method include using a weakened vaccine?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 489
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 6:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does the second method include using a weakened vaccine? yope - also worth exploring
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1053
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 6:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does Bob weaken it? If so, by diluting it? Using small doses of it? Half-killing the germs (or whatever is causing it)? Using some sort of medium to filter it?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 491
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 6:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does Bob weaken it? If so, by diluting it? no, but sort of Using small doses of it? no Half-killing the germs (or whatever is causing it)?no Using some sort of medium to filter it? no
Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member
Username: Jenburdoo

Post Number: 1458
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 3:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Weakened vaccines of different but related diseases are, I believe, the traditional method of vaccination. The term itself comes from the discovery that exposure to cowpox (affecting vacines) made one immune to smallpox. Is Bob's methodology materially different from this basic concept?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 498
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 2:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Weakened vaccines of different but related diseases are, I believe, the traditional method of vaccination. The term itself comes from the discovery that exposure to cowpox (affecting vacines) made one immune to smallpox. Is Bob's methodology materially different from this basic concept? yes for both methods

however, there is an interesting tidbit related to the type of vaccination you describe that is not part of the puzzle, but that I will try to remember to share when you figure out method 2.
Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member
Username: Jenburdoo

Post Number: 1484
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Monday, September 21, 2009 - 5:10 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Will the patient be exposed at all to any form of the disease he is being vaccinated against?

Are we only trying to find method 2 at this point?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 522
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 21, 2009 - 2:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Will the patient be exposed at all to any form of the disease he is being vaccinated against?
method 1: yes; method 2: yesish

Are we only trying to find method 2 at this point?
no, both. And actually, finding method 1 might help you with method 2.

But all you need to figure out for method 1 is what is meant by "destroyed" (not the tools used, but what the virus "looks" like after it's destroyed).

Method 1 hint: You've already figured out that historically, changing the temperature could be involved in the process. I'll add that a different historical method was to dry the virus out, which had roughly same effect as changing the temperature. Method 1 follows the same idea as these historical methods, in a way, but there is one big difference that makes it less risky.
Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member
Username: Jenburdoo

Post Number: 1502
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 2:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the difference: isolating the virus in some way? Putting it in a container.

Destroyed = just dead, or something more? Is the virus still technically a virus, or has it changed into, say, an even lower form of life?

I'm a touch confused at this point; can I have a recap?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 544
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 2:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

method 1:
Is the difference: isolating the virus in some way? no Putting it in a container.no

Destroyed = just dead, or something more?something more. The problem with the historical methods is that there's a chance that some of the "killed" virus isn't actually dead and could still make you sick. Method 1 does something extra to make sure that there's virtually no chance of someone getting sick Is the virus still technically a virus, or has it changed into, say, an even lower form of life? It's a dead virus. It's still a virus in that your immune system would still recognize it as a virus. But it can't make you sick.

I'm a touch confused at this point; can I have a recap?
Sure. RECAP, WITH HINTS

You already figured out what I thought was the hard part of the puzzle:
Bob makes a product that saves lives (rabies vaccine). The key material is very dangerous (it will give you rabies, which first makes you crazy and then is 100% fatal).

There are two methods that Bob can use to make the product safe.

The first method is simple but counterintuitive - destroy the dangerous material. Destroy means kill the virus in such a way that you're sure it's dead and can't be reanimated.

Historically, killing the virus has been done using temperature (either high heat or freezing) or dehydration. [Interesting side note: the very first rabies vaccine was just a chunk of dried out flesh from an infected animal (a rabbit, I think). Yuck!]. The problem with these methods is that sometimes the virus isn't actually killed, it's just dormant. For example, if you dry it out, you might think it's dead, but if there's a tiny bit of moisture left in the sample, some of the virus might survive and still be able to make you sick once it is rehydrated in the vaccine.

For method 1, all you have to figure out is what is the extra step taken to ensure that the virus can't make you sick even if for some reason a tiny bit of it isn't killed. The technique used isn't important to the puzzle. So if it helps you to think about one of the historical methods, you can.

For example, let's say the technique for method 1 is dehydration. What is the difference between a dehydrated virus that might survive due to a tiny bit of moisture remaining in the sample, and a dehydrated virus that is still recognizable as a virus but that can't "come back to life" even if the sample wasn't dried entirely?

I'm not looking for a technical explanation. It is perfectly acceptable to think of the virus as an abstract shape, a piece of paper, a small animal, or anything else that helps you form a picture in your mind. If you want to think of it as a chain of DNA, you can, but it is not necessary.

There is a recap for the product, the dangerous ingredient, and method 1. Let's figure out method 1, and then I'll do a recap for method 2 (which, as I said, builds on method 1 in a way, which is really the only reason method 1 is even part of the puzzle - I wouldn't dream of asking you to figure out two entirely unrelated methods).


sorry for the length...I hope that doesn't make it more confusing. I'm always torn between giving extra information, such as examples and explanations that I think will be helpful, and trying to keep it short enough that the important information doens't get lost. The short version of the recap is this:

Bob makes rabies vaccines. There are many techniques he could use to kill the virus, but with each technique, there's a chance that a small amount of the virus could survive and "reanimate" to make someone sick. For method 1, he takes an extra step to make sure that there's no way the virus can reanimate. What happens to the virus? What is that extra step? In other words, at the end of the procedure, how does the virus in Bob's vaccine look different than a virus without the extra step done to it?
Kalira (Kalira)
New member
Username: Kalira

Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 3:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Forgive whatever mistake I'm about to make, but it's been a while since I was in a biology class. I may have the structure of a virus wrong, but I seem to recall there being an outer structure that encapsulates the "gooey center" of actual virus, and perhaps a delivery system as well.

Does the extra step Bob takes involve:
the outer structure?
the virus within the structure?
the delivery system?

Would what he does involve altering this/these components? removing or destroying them? adding something to them? something else?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 549
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 5:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Forgive whatever mistake I'm about to make, but it's been a while since I was in a biology class. I may have the structure of a virus wrong, but I seem to recall there being an outer structure that encapsulates the "gooey center" of actual virus, and perhaps a delivery system as well. not a problem. My expectations for this puzzle are such that you shouldn't have to remember anything from biology class about viruses at all.

In fact, the only bit of knowledge that you need from biology class is that vaccines work by introducing something to your body so that your immune system can recognize and attack the virus later if you're ever exposed to it. But everyone asking questions has already shown that you know this already, as it's fairly common knowledge even if you haven't taken a biology class in decades


Does the extra step Bob takes involve:
the outer structure?
the virus within the structure? It would work to destroy only this structure, but I think all parts are actually destroyed.
the delivery system?
This is really more detail than you need (or that I know).

method 1:
Would what he does involve altering this/these components? removing or destroying them? adding something to them? something else? these individual components are not relevant. Focus on the whole virus.

Big hint: Like I said, you can think about the virus in abstract terms. For example, How can you alter a sheet of paper so that it's still recognizably paper but doesn't function like a sheet of paper?
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1108
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 7:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

crumple it? burn it? put it behind a glass pane? soak it wet? deep-freeze it?
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 1109
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 7:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

tear it to pieces? grind it?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 553
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 7:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

crumple it? burn it? put it behind a glass pane? soak it wet? deep-freeze it? grind it? I would argue that each of these either leaves the paper functional or renders it unrecognizable as paper. The possible exception is the glass pane idea, which works for the paper but not the vaccine.

tear it to pieces? yes! this one. Your immune system can still recognize a virus and defend against it even if it (more specifically, its DNA) is cut into pieces. However, those pieces can't rejoin and become a living, functioning virus again, so they can't make you sick. For method 1, Bob uses a chemical that not only kills the virus, it cuts the virus's DNA into short segments.

Method 1 solved.

I will do a method 2 recap soon, but can't do it now. Until then, feel free to ask questions about it.
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 560
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

RECAP:
Bob makes a product that saves lives [Rabies Vaccine]. However, the key material in the product is very dangerous [the rabies virus, which will make you crazy and then kill you].

There are two methods that Bob can use to make the product safe. The first method is simple but counterintuitive - destroy the dangerous material [destroy = kill the virus and cut it into little pieces, thus allowing our immune systems to recognize the vaccine as a rabies virus, but preventing the virus in the vaccine from making us sick. (Technically, he uses a chemical to cut up the virus's DNA into short segments)]

All that's left is the second method. Here's what you know so far:
- Knowing method 1 may help you figure out method 2.
- Method 2 uses a live vaccine.
- Bob does not:
Use a low dose of the live rabies virus
Half-kill the rabies virus
Use some sort of medium to filter it

- The following questions are worth exploring:

The live vaccine of a different but related disease? yope
Does the second method include using a weakened vaccine? yope
If so, by diluting it? no, but sort of
Will the patient be exposed at all to any form of the disease he is being vaccinated against? yesish or yope
Kalira (Kalira)
New member
Username: Kalira

Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2009
Posted on Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 3:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does Bob end up with the same product with both methods (i.e. a vaccine made up of little pieces of rabies virus DNA)?

Does Bob do something like replicate small sections of the virus's DNA? without using the actual rabies virus? (basically, just replicating the same product he gets from method 1, just more "from scratch" rather than from destroying an already living sample of the virus)

Does method 2 begin with actual live rabies virus? a live related virus? no live virus?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 562
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 4:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does Bob end up with the same product with both methods (i.e. a vaccine made up of little pieces of rabies virus DNA)? no, but...

Does Bob do something like replicate small sections of the virus's DNA? yesish without using the actual rabies virus? no (basically, just replicating the same product he gets from method 1, just more "from scratch" rather than from destroying an already living sample of the virus)no

Does method 2 begin with actual live rabies virus? yes a live related virus?yes to yope no live virus?no
Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator
Username: Gourami

Post Number: 584
Registered: 10-2008
Posted on Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 9:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does he fully kill a rabies virus at any point during method 2? Does he kill anything else? Does he use chemical means to change a live rabies virus into something else? Or to change something else into a live rabies virus?
Is cloning relevant?
Pikachizzle (Pikachizzle)
New member
Username: Pikachizzle

Post Number: 399
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Friday, September 25, 2009 - 2:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does method 2 use a form of rabies that doesn't affect humans?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 582
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Friday, September 25, 2009 - 2:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does he fully kill a rabies virus at any point during method 2? no Does he kill anything else? no Does he use chemical means I don't know what means he uses to accomplish this method (chemical or otherwise). I only know the end result. to change a live rabies virus into something else? noish Or to change something else into a live rabies virus? noish
Is cloning relevant? yes or yesish. I can't find an answer of whether it's technically considered cloning or not, but if not, is very similar.

Does method 2 use a form of rabies that doesn't affect humans? yope...explore
Pikachizzle (Pikachizzle)
New member
Username: Pikachizzle

Post Number: 401
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 1:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I was thinking, [I don't know if this makes sense], Bob uses rabies that only affects birds or dogs or himself so that he can safely study it and find a cure.
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 599
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Monday, September 28, 2009 - 2:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I was thinking, [I don't know if this makes sense], Bob uses rabies that only affects birds or dogs or himself so that he can safely study it and find a cure. no, Bob isn't studying anything, he only manufactures vaccines. But...

"Bob uses X that only affects birds" is relevant. But X does not equal a rabies virus
Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator
Username: Gourami

Post Number: 613
Registered: 10-2008
Posted on Monday, September 28, 2009 - 7:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

In the sentence above, would X be another virus? Or a bacterium? Does this cause illness in only certain non-human animals? In only birds?

Is he encouraging a virus to grow at any point? Inside a non-human host? Or maybe inside a human host? Is he reproducing a virus by means other than just having it reproduce naturally, hence the yesish to cloning? If so, is he doing this to a rabies virus? To another virus?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 611
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 2:08 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

In the sentence above, would X be another virus? yes. Canarypox. Or a bacterium? no Does this cause illness in only certain non-human animals? yes In only birds? as far as I know

Is he encouraging a virus to grow at any point? yesish...follow up on this ish Inside a non-human host? yope...in non-human cells. Bird cells, I think. Or maybe inside a human host? no Is he reproducing a virus by means other than just having it reproduce naturally, yope...in cells in a lab instead of in an animal, but normal otherwise hence the yesish to cloning? no If so, is he doing this to a rabies virus? yope To another virus? yes, the canarypox virus.

As far as cloning goes...if you know how cloning works, then you'll pretty much know the answer to the puzzle. If not, there's nothing you can figure out about it that wouldn't be above and beyond solving the puzzle. So I'd say just forget about the cloning, because if it was going to help you, it would have already.
Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member
Username: Galfisk

Post Number: 12
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 11:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does Bob insert part of the rabies gene into a bird virus, making it look like the rabies virus to the immune system, while being otherwise harmless to humans? Or put parts of the gene into a cell culture or animal, making the cells produce empty virus casings?
Noel (Noel)
New member
Username: Noel

Post Number: 614
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 2:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does Bob insert part of the rabies gene into a bird virus, making it look like the rabies virus to the immune system, while being otherwise harmless to humans? this is it!

******SPOILER*******
Method 2 is pretty much exactly as Galfisk said. Unlike method 1, method 2 uses a live virus to make a rabies vaccine. But it doesn't make you sick because the vaccine is mostly made using a live canary pox virus, which makes birds sick but not humans, cats, or dogs. A small portion of the rabies virus is inserted into the canary pox virus. The little bit of rabies virus is a region that your immune system happens to be able to recognize, but that won't actually give you rabies.

Full spoiler: Bob makes rabies vaccines. Rabies vaccines save lives (people and animals). But the most important ingredient of a rabies vaccine is the rabies virus, because that's what your immune system recognizes and remembers to protect you later. One method he uses to keep people and animals from getting rabies is counterintuitive: he destroys it by killing the virus and cutting it up into little pieces (using a chemical). A second method is to insert a little piece of live rabies virus DNA into the DNA of a live virus that doesn't make mammals sick (the canarypox virus).


Thanks to everyone who stuck with this one! I think I've learned my lesson about asking puzzles I only know the surface details about. I should have known that looking for basic explanations of a situation doesn't mean I'll get basic questions -- you certainly kept me on my toes! And, I learned I'm a terrible guess of what's easy and difficult. I really thought that the hard part would be figuring out it was a vaccine, and that the rest would come quickly after that. Oh well =)

Oh, and way up near the top somewhere I said I'd share a related fact to one of the questions asked. The question was whether this vaccine operated like a smallpox vaccination that is actually made of out a related virus (cowpox). It's not, but rabies technicians are vaccinated against smallpox to protect them from canarypox, even though it's not supposed to infect humans. Maybe they're trying to make sure it doesn't mutate and become able to enter the human population?
Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator
Username: Gourami

Post Number: 619
Registered: 10-2008
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 7:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I've found that issues in natural science make especially good lateral puzzles, because there are so many oddities specific to one species or situation. I don't do them too often though, because, as you said, it's tough to answer everyone's questions unless you are an expert on the topic. In any case, good puzzle!

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: