[Burichan]  [Futaba]  [Nitronet]  [nitroib4f]  -  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]
Break the illusion, or bite your navel.

Gameboard Guidelines


Discord


[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Post a Reply
File 129871451648.png - (17.80KB , 200x200 , Kohaku07.png )
472 No. 472 edit
Someone was killed by nitrogen gas. How did they die?
Expand all images
>> No. 474 edit
When you say "Yes/No questions", do you mean that the only means by which we can explore the possibility space of this mystery is by asking yes or no questions about the circumstances?
>> No. 475 edit
>>474
Yes.
>> No. 476 edit
Did the nitrogen gas in question enter the person in question's body before the moment of their death?
>> No. 477 edit
>>476
>Did the nitrogen gas in question enter the person in question's body before the moment of their death?

No.
>> No. 478 edit
Was the person in question a human being?
Was the nitrogen gas in question between 10°C and 40°C in temperature, on average?
>> No. 479 edit
>>478

>Was the person in question a human being?
Yes.

>Was the nitrogen gas in question between 10°C and 40°C in temperature, on average?
No.
>> No. 480 edit
>>479
Was the nitrogen gas in question below 0°C?
Did the human being in question come into physical contact with the nitrogen gas in question before the moment of their death?
Was the human being in question, or their garments if applicable, in physical contact with the ground at the time of their death?
>> No. 481 edit
>>480

>Was the nitrogen gas in question below 0°C?
No.

>Did the human being in question come into physical contact with the nitrogen gas in question before the moment of their death?
No.

>Was the human being in question, or their garments if applicable, in physical contact with the ground at the time of their death?
No.
>> No. 483 edit
Was the nitrogen gas a component of a larger artificial apparatus or device?
Was the human being in question more than 5000 feet above sea level at the time of their death?
Was the human being in question below sea level within the hour preceding their death?
Was the nitrogen gas in question above 40°C on average?
>> No. 485 edit
>>483

>Was the nitrogen gas a component of a larger artificial apparatus or device?
Maybe. Elaborate on this question.

>Was the human being in question more than 5000 feet above sea level at the time of their death?
Irrelevant. Yes.

>Was the human being in question below sea level within the hour preceding their death?
No.

>Was the nitrogen gas in question above 40°C on average?
Yes.
>> No. 487 edit
>>486

>Is the apparatus in question generally classified as a weapon?
No.
>> No. 488 edit
I'll think of how to elaborate on the question in the meanwhile, then.
>> No. 489 edit
File 129872988486.jpg - (64.24KB , 350x218 , 1296934549011.jpg )
489
Was he killed by nitrogen gas?
>> No. 490 edit
Were they killed by somebody named Nitrogen Gas?

Did they suffocate?
>> No. 491 edit
File 129874362947.png - (563.95KB , 795x1117 , enj_a23 displeased 1.png )
491
Was the person killed by a device that utilized pressurized nitrogen gas?
>> No. 492 edit
Rather than clarify the device question, I'll take another tack.

Was the nitrogen gas in question heated to above 40°C for some reason X that has nothing to do with causing the person in question's death?
>> No. 493 edit
>How did they die?
He was killed by nitrogen gas. Duh
>> No. 494 edit
File 129875775389.png - (17.80KB , 200x200 , Kohaku07.png )
494
>>489

>Was he killed by nitrogen gas?
Yes.

>>491

>Was the person killed by a device that utilized pressurized nitrogen gas?
Yes.

>>492

>Was the nitrogen gas in question heated to above 40°C for some reason X that has nothing to do with causing the person in question's death?
No.
>> No. 495 edit
File 129875829168.png - (569.14KB , 734x1120 , enj_a11 default 1.png )
495
>>494
I don't know many devices that use pressurized nitrogen gas.

Was the person in question killed by a paintball gun?
>> No. 496 edit
>>495

>Was the person in question killed by a paintball gun?
No.
>> No. 498 edit
>>496
Were they killed by an explosion? Or fire in general?
>> No. 499 edit
>>498

>Were they killed by an explosion?
Maybe. Elaborate.

>Or fire in general?
No.
>> No. 500 edit
>>499
A tank of the stuff was ruptured and exploded into shrapnel.
>> No. 501 edit
>>500

>A tank of the stuff was ruptured and exploded into shrapnel.
No.
>> No. 502 edit
>>501
A device containing the stuff was ignited and exploded.
>> No. 503 edit
>>501

>A device containing the stuff was ignited and exploded.
Yes.
>> No. 504 edit
File 129875889412.png - (568.36KB , 734x1120 , enj_a11 default 2.png )
504
>>499
Was the person in question killed by asphyxiation following the rapid displacement of oxygen upon the release of pressurized nitrogen gas?
>> No. 506 edit
>>504

>Was the person in question killed by asphyxiation following the rapid displacement of oxygen upon the release of pressurized nitrogen gas?
No.
>> No. 507 edit
>>503
Was it a propane tank?
>> No. 509 edit
>>507

>Was it a propane tank?
No.
>> No. 510 edit
File 129875962493.png - (588.21KB , 849x1117 , enj_a22 serious 1.png )
510
>>506
Just to confirm, the person never inhaled any of the nitrogen gas? As per >>477
>> No. 512 edit
>>510

>Just to confirm, the person never inhaled any of the nitrogen gas?
Yes.
>> No. 513 edit
Was the nitrogen in gaseous form the entire time?
>> No. 515 edit
>>513

>Was the nitrogen in gaseous form the entire time?
No.
>> No. 516 edit
>>515
Was it at some point a liquid?
>> No. 518 edit
>>516

>Was it at some point a liquid?
No.
>> No. 519 edit
>>518
Then was it at some point a solid?

And if so, is this relevant to how it was used to kill the person?
>> No. 520 edit
>>519

>Then was it at some point a solid?
Yes.

>And if so, is this relevant to how it was used to kill the person?
Yes.
>> No. 521 edit
>>520
Was this nitrogen part of a compound?
>> No. 522 edit
He was hit by a metal gas container. Without all of the pressured gas inside, he would have not died.
>> No. 523 edit
>>521

>Was this nitrogen part of a compound?
Yes.

>>522

>He was hit by a metal gas container. Without all of the pressured gas inside, he would have not died.
No.
>> No. 524 edit
>>523
Was it nitroglycerin?
>> No. 525 edit
File 129876240034.png - (567.61KB , 734x1120 , enj_a11 laughing 2.png )
525
>>524
Are you proposing he was blown up by dynamite?
>> No. 526 edit
>>525
It... Kind of makes sense, actually.
>> No. 527 edit
>>524

>Was it nitroglycerin?
No.
>> No. 528 edit
>>527
Was the nitrogen compound the part that was ignited?

And if so, is the nitrogen compound responsible for any sort of explosion?
>> No. 529 edit
>>528

>Was the nitrogen compound the part that was ignited?
Yes.

>And if so, is the nitrogen compound responsible for any sort of explosion?
Yes.
>> No. 530 edit
>>529
Was it nitrocellulose?

Was it guncotton?
>> No. 531 edit
>>530
Oh, and was it trinitrotoluene (TNT)?
>> No. 533 edit
>>530

>Was it nitrocellulose?
No.

>Was it guncotton?
No.

>>531

>Oh, and was it trinitrotoluene (TNT)?
No.
>> No. 534 edit
>>533
Was the explosion not directly related to the person's death?
>> No. 535 edit
>>534

>Was the explosion not directly related to the person's death?
Maybe. Elaborate.
>> No. 536 edit
>>535
Was the explosion just used to trigger the cause of death?

If so, was the cause of death something like a cave-in?
>> No. 537 edit
>>536

>Was the explosion just used to trigger the cause of death?
Yes.

>If so, was the cause of death something like a cave-in?
No.
>> No. 538 edit
>>537
Was the cause of death impalement?
>> No. 539 edit
>>538

>Was the cause of death impalement?
No.

Was the man willfully murdered?
No.
>> No. 540 edit
>>539
Was it a homicide?
>> No. 541 edit
>>540

>Was it a homicide?
No.
>> No. 542 edit
>>541
Was it an accident?
>> No. 543 edit
>>542

>Was it an accident?
Yes.
>> No. 544 edit
>>543
Was the explosion due to a malfunction of some sort?
>> No. 545 edit
>>544

>Was the explosion due to a malfunction of some sort?
No.
>> No. 546 edit
>>545
Was the death due to carelessness?
>> No. 547 edit
>>546

>Was the death due to carelessness?
Yes.
>> No. 548 edit
>>547
Was the person too close to whatever it was that exploded? Closer than they should have been?
>> No. 549 edit
>>548

>Was the person too close to whatever it was that exploded?
Yes.

>Closer than they should have been?
Yes.
>> No. 550 edit
>>549
Was it an explosion of flavor?

Was the concentration of nitrogen gas in the air lower than normal?
>> No. 551 edit
>>550

>Was the concentration of nitrogen gas in the air lower than normal?
No.
>> No. 552 edit
>>551
Was something in the area at a low temperature? Like below freezing?
>> No. 553 edit
>>552

>Was something in the area at a low temperature? Like below freezing?
Irrelevant. No.
>> No. 554 edit
>>553
Was the ignition intentional?
>> No. 556 edit
>>554

>Was the ignition intentional?
Maybe. Elaborate.
>> No. 557 edit
>>556
Was it lit for recreational purposes? Or for some kind of event?
>> No. 558 edit
>>557

>Was it lit for recreational purposes? Or for some kind of event?
No.
>> No. 559 edit
>>558
Was the nitrogen gas give off when the compound exploded?
>> No. 560 edit
>>559

>Was the nitrogen gas give off when the compound exploded?
Yes.
>> No. 561 edit
>>560
Was the compound ammonia?

Was the compound an acid?

Was the nitrogen still part of a compound when it was released during the explosion?
>> No. 562 edit
>>561

>Was the compound ammonia?
No.

>Was the compound an acid?
No.

>Was the nitrogen still part of a compound when it was released during the explosion?
No.
>> No. 563 edit
>>562
Was the ignition caused by a lit fuse?
>> No. 564 edit
>>563

>Was the ignition caused by a lit fuse?
Yes.
>> No. 565 edit
>>564
Was gunpowder involved?
>> No. 566 edit
>>565

>Was gunpowder involved?
No.
>> No. 567 edit
>>566
Was fuel involved?
>> No. 568 edit
>>567

>Was fuel involved?
No.
>> No. 569 edit
>>568
Was an electrical charge used for ignition?
>> No. 570 edit
>>569

>Was an electrical charge used for ignition?
Yes.
>> No. 571 edit
>>570
Was it supposed to be detonated remotely?
>> No. 572 edit
>>571

>Was it supposed to be detonated remotely?
No.
>> No. 573 edit
>>572
Was the explosion bigger than it should have been?
>> No. 574 edit
>>573

>Was the explosion bigger than it should have been?
No.
>> No. 575 edit
>>574
Was the person standing much closer than was safe?
>> No. 576 edit
>>575

>Was the person standing much closer than was safe?
No. The person was not standing.
>> No. 577 edit
>>576
Were they swimming?
>> No. 578 edit
File 129877087014.png - (14.76KB , 80x150 , kh14.png )
578
>>577

>Were they swimming?
No.
>> No. 579 edit
>>578
So they were sitting?
>> No. 580 edit
>>579

>So they were sitting?
Yes.
>> No. 581 edit
>>580
Was the explosion small? Was the person not actually engulfed by the explosion?
>> No. 582 edit
>>581

>Was the explosion small?
Yes.

>Was the person not actually engulfed by the explosion?
Yes.
>> No. 583 edit
>>582
Was there more than one explosion?
>> No. 584 edit
>>583

>Was there more than one explosion?
No.
>> No. 585 edit
>>584
Were they surprised by the explosion? Did this lead to their death?
>> No. 586 edit
>>585

>Were they surprised by the explosion?
No.

>Did this lead to their death?
Yes.
>> No. 587 edit
>>586
Was something being heated slowly?
>> No. 588 edit
The man died by lack of oxigen in the air.
The man died by lack of air.
>> No. 589 edit
>>587

>Was something being heated slowly?
No.

>>588

>The man died by lack of oxigen in the air.
No.

>The man died by lack of air.
No.
>> No. 590 edit
>>589
Was the device that contained the explosion plugged into an outlet?
>> No. 591 edit
>>590

>Was the device that contained the explosion plugged into an outlet?
No.
>> No. 592 edit
>>591
Was it battery powered? Or powered by electricity at all?
>> No. 593 edit
>>592

>Was it battery powered?
Yes.

>Or powered by electricity at all?
Yes.
>> No. 594 edit
>>593
Was the device itself a battery?
>> No. 595 edit
>>594

>Was the device itself a battery?
No.
>> No. 596 edit
>>595
Was nitrous oxide involved?
>> No. 597 edit
>>596

>Was nitrous oxide involved?
Irrelevant. Maybe.
>> No. 598 edit
>>597
Was the person driving a car?
>> No. 599 edit
>>598

>Was the person driving a car?
Yes.
>> No. 600 edit
>>599
Did the person crash the car?
>> No. 601 edit
>>600

>Did the person crash the car?
Yes.
>> No. 602 edit
File 129877518211.png - (88.36KB , 345x326 , RAW RAW FIGHT DA POWER.png )
602
>>601
Were they killed by a car crash?
>> No. 603 edit
File 129877530068.png - (27.07KB , 200x200 , Kohaku04.png )
603
>>602

>Were they killed by a car crash?
No.
>> No. 604 edit
>>603
Did the engine explode?
>> No. 605 edit
>>604

>>Did the engine explode?
No.
>> No. 606 edit
>>605
Was the explosion supposed to happen?
>> No. 607 edit
>>606

>Was the explosion supposed to happen?
Yes.
>> No. 608 edit
>>607
Was the explosion inside the engine? As in internal combustion?
>> No. 609 edit
>>608

>Was the explosion inside the engine? As in internal combustion?
No.
>> No. 610 edit
>>609
Was this a race car?
>> No. 611 edit
>>610

>Was this a race car?
No.
>> No. 612 edit
>>611
Was the airbag what exploded?
>> No. 613 edit
>>612

>Was the airbag what exploded?
Maybe. Elaborate.
>> No. 614 edit
>>613
On the crash, did the airbag inflate? And did this manage to kill the person?
>> No. 615 edit
File 129877693570.png - (29.14KB , 200x200 , Kohaku02.png )
615
>>614
Good job. It took a while but you finally got there.

The man was driving home and was involved in an accident. He did not have his seatbelt on and was leaning forward. The airbag inflated and knocked him backwards, snapping his neck and killing him.

Here is the science part. The explosive material used in airbag systems is sodium azide, NaN3, which is very sensitive to shock or changes in temperature. The airbag system ignites it with an electric fuse, decomposing the sodium azide into Na metal and N2 gas. It's an exothermic reaction and the reaction occurs at a temperature much higher than 40 degrees celsius, so the airbag will inflate very quickly.

>> No. 616 edit
File 129877703471.png - (21.13KB , 200x200 , Harry Potter studying for his OWLs.png )
616
>>615
It was a good mystery.
>> No. 617 edit
Clever. This was fun.
>> No. 618 edit
File 12987773918.png - (27.07KB , 200x200 , Kohaku04.png )
618
>>616
Normally these things go a lot faster, but not a lot of people wanted to play.

>>617
I was wondering when you'd show up again.
>> No. 619 edit
>>618
Well, they may have been... Distracted by some things that happened in /teaparty/.
>> No. 621 edit
>>619
Too much going on there for me to follow.

>>620
>> No. 647 edit
>>618
I keep somewhat unusual hours, and was busy during the bulk of the game.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason