| Author | Message | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 956 Registered: 9-2009 |
They got rather more than expected. | ||
| Yojimbo (Yojimbo)
New member Username: Yojimbo Post Number: 279 Registered: 11-2009 |
[hope you have another puzzle ready, because I think I'm closing in on $poiling "Warning" ~~] They - HAM? HAF? a mixture? were they expecting something nice? had they done something to deserve something nice? did they acquire a surfeit of some pleasant thing, but the quantity made it seem grotesque? location/era relevant? number of "them" relevant? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 571 Registered: 5-2009 |
They: HAM? Did they get something physical? Energy? Information? Affection? Public interest? Money? Help? Recognition? Rights? As the result of a calculation? Did they expect to get something that was good for them? Was what they finally got good for them? Did they get what they got from the source they expected? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 958 Registered: 9-2009 |
They - HAM? HAF? a mixture? H, A, mixture were they expecting something nice? No. had they done something to deserve something nice? No. did they acquire a surfeit of some pleasant thing, but the quantity made it seem grotesque? No. location/era relevant? Yes. number of "them" relevant? Millions indirectly invovled, thousands or tens of thousands directly involved, and hundreds directly responsible. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 961 Registered: 9-2009 |
They: HAM? H, A, mixed. Did they get something physical? No. Energy? This. Information? Affection? Public interest? Money? Help? Recognition? Rights? As the result of a calculation? Calculations were invovled. Did they expect to get something that was good for them? Yope. Was what they finally got good for them? No. Did they get what they got from the source they expected? Yes. | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 588 Registered: 6-2008 |
Was it more than they expected? or more than someone else expected them to get? Energy from: burning some type of fuel? wind power? water power? nuclear power? When you say they got more energy, and what they got was not good for them, are you saying that the excess energy harmed them in some way? Was a previously controlled or "tamed" source of energy unleashed to the point where it caused damage? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 963 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was it more than they expected? <b>Yes.</i> or more than someone else expected them to get? Nobody expected them to get this much. Energy from: burning some type of fuel? wind power? water power? nuclear power? This. When you say they got more energy, and what they got was not good for them, are you saying that the excess energy harmed them in some way? Yes - those directly involved were harmed. Was a previously controlled or "tamed" source of energy unleashed to the point where it caused damage? Yope. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 1069 Registered: 3-2004 |
Early experiments with radio-active substances relevant? Did this happen in the 19th century? 20th? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 965 Registered: 9-2009 |
Early No/noish. experiments One experiment. with radio-active substances These are invovled. relevant? Yes. Did this happen in the 19th century? 20th? 19th. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 1070 Registered: 3-2004 |
What do you mean, 19th century not early when experimenting with radio-activity, discovered 1896...? You probably mean that those conducting the experiment didn't have a clue about radio-activity? and didn't know radio-active substances were involved in the experiment? and because of this expected much less energy than they got? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 966 Registered: 9-2009 |
Oh, I'm too tired...***BLOOPER***, it's the 20th century. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 573 Registered: 5-2009 |
An experiment with nuclear fission? fusion? For military purposes? Civil ones? Both? Is a nuclear reactor involved? Nuclear weapons? Disposal of radioactive waste relevant? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 968 Registered: 9-2009 |
An experiment with nuclear fission? fusion? This. For military purposes? And this. Civil ones? Both? Is a nuclear reactor involved? Nuclear weapons? Also this. Disposal of radioactive waste relevant? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 575 Registered: 5-2009 |
Did they test a hydrogen bomb? And find out the resulting explosion was stronger than expected? Where those directly involved soldiers? Did some of them die as a result of the experiment? If so, immediately? Was the experiment mostly planned by US-Americans? Soviets? Other Europeans? | ||
| Yojimbo (Yojimbo)
New member Username: Yojimbo Post Number: 281 Registered: 11-2009 |
Manhattan Project relevant? had the experimenters made false assumptions about their material? were they unaware of the potential of the radiation? was it a bomb test? carelessness involved? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 969 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did they test a hydrogen bomb? Yes. And find out the resulting explosion was stronger than expected? Indeed. Where those directly involved soldiers? Not sure if they were called soldiers. They were the military people and scientists responsible for the test. Did some of them die as a result of the experiment? If so, immediately? They didn't die. Was the experiment mostly planned by US-Americans? This. Soviets? Other Europeans? I'm going for Christmas vacation soon. The puzzle is ready for $poilage, if you an guess which atomic bomb test this was. Or you may ask more questions if you want. I will post the $spoiler wednesday evening (CET). | ||
| Yojimbo (Yojimbo)
New member Username: Yojimbo Post Number: 283 Registered: 11-2009 |
Bikini Atoll relevant? Castle Bravo test relevant? unanticipated yield relevant? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 970 Registered: 9-2009 |
Bikini Atoll relevant? Castle Bravo test relevant? unanticipated yield relevant? ***SPOILER*** Yes indeed! The yield from the Castle Bravo nuclear test was about 3 times as high as expected. An unanticipated nuclear reaction meant that material in the bomb which was supposed to be inert (lithium-7) instead produced additional fusion fuel (tritium) as well as neutrons that boosted the third fission stage of the bomb. Buildings and scientific instruments were destroyed, and the test produced significant nuclear fallout. Vacation time, I'll be back with more puzzles in 2010. A merry christmas and a happy new year to everyone at LTPF! | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 582 Registered: 5-2009 |
Thank you, and merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you, too! | ||
| Yojimbo (Yojimbo)
New member Username: Yojimbo Post Number: 284 Registered: 11-2009 |
Nice puzzle; thanks. Have nice holidays -- I'm currently jubilant about the recent solstice. I'll look forward to more puzzles in the new year. ~Y |
