Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 23:14:24 -0800 From: "Luke M. Vaughn" To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 61: Closing summary Round 61 is over. Doug Chatham is the winner and new Judge. I hope the round was as interesting for the rest of you as it was for me. Now, if I can manage to avoid the judgeship again for a while. It was fun, but very very brain wracking. --- Proposed Overrule 61:A The FRC is on "hiatus" until 12:00 midnight SET September 1, 1996. Before September 1, no fantasy rules for this round shall be posted and no eligibility time for this round shall be lost or gained. The Judge may postpone further the start of this round. The hiatus shall not affect the ability of the FRC to adopt amendments, temporary or permanent, to its regular ordinances. For: Ørjan Against: Stephen, Andre, Anton, Doug Chatham, Morendil Voted down 1-5. --- Final Eligibility and style: Doug, Thu, 01 Aug 1996 13:17:23 +0100 +2.5 *Winner* Jeremy Ineligible +4 *Wizard* Ed Ineligible +2 Sharkey, Ineligible +1.5 Ronald Ineligible +1.5 Andre Ineligible 0 All others Ineligible --- *60:1* Ronald, Wed, 17 Jul 1996 12:54:12 +0100 *VALID* Style: +1.5 >>>>>> Fantasy Rule Chemistry. The 6 atoms in our universe can form molecules according to certain Laws. These Laws gouvern also the possible reactions between atoms and molecules. The total number of Laws that may be explicitly stated in valid rules shall be no more than the number of Members having submitted valid rules. Here is an example of a chemical reaction: AB + C -> ABC + BC 2 2 >>>>>> Validity: No problems that I can see. Style: Creative interpetation of the suggested theme. (+1) Good set of starting rules with a couple of nice little possible traps. (+0.5) *61:2* Ed, Wed, 17 Jul 1996 14:35:51 +0100 *INVALID* Style: +1 >>>>>> A: The 6 atoms in our universe shall be designated as Elements "a", "b", "c", "e", "f", and "g". They have, respectively, proportionally increasing atomic weights (AW) (i.e. element "b" has "a"+1 AW, "c" has "b" +1). B: Law 1- Any element in the first half of the periodic table (PT) may combine to form a compound with, and only with, any element from the second half of the PT. Resultant compounds are known as Simple Compunds. Complex compunds may be formed in other ways as described in other Laws. >>>>>>> Validity: Unfortunantly, the attempted law in part b does not agree with the example reaction given by Ronald. And since I can not assume Ronald would intentionally post an impossible reaction, I must hold that laws governing reactions must agree with the example. Thus this rule must be invalid. I'm just glad I reread this one before writing this. I almost missed that point. Style: The first part was good, especially the touch of dropping the letter 'd'. I also liked the definition of atomic weight. (+1) However, while the second part was a nice law,(+0.5) I would have to dock points for not matching Ronald's example. (-0.5) So it all balances out. *61:3* Doug, Wed, 17 Jul 1996 23:01:49 +0100 *VALID* Style: +0.5 >>>>>>>>> Chemical reactions are irreversible. >>>>>>>>> Validity: This one is so short that validity is almost a given. Style: Interesting. Could have some implications for later rules as yet unseen. But short. Very short. Makes the style thing very hard for me to judge. (+0.5) *61:4* Andre, Thu, 18 Jul 1996 10:54:50 +0100 *INVALID* Style: 0 >>>>>>> law: In every reaction the binding energy either stays the same or decreases. example: Ronald's reaction is an example of a so-called neutral reaction (in which the binding energy stays the same), while ABC + AB -> AC + AB + B 2 2 is fantastic (has a decrease of energy): left right binding energy binding energy AB (2x) 1 (2x) AC 4 BC 5 AB 1 BB 2 BB 2 total 9 total 7 extra: Each rule shall contain at least 1 reaction, and state whether it is neutral or fantastic. >>>>>>>>>>>> validity: 61:3 does not contain a chemical reaction, and 61:1 does not state whether its reaction is neutral or fantastic. As the extra part of this rule does not explicitly state that it applies to future rules only, I have to apply it to them. Since I can't apply it, this rule must be invalid. style: Interesting rule. Not only gives us fantastic chemistry, but a small peek into the wild and wolly realm of fantastic thermodynamics. And a mighty interesting realm it is. It would have been fun to experience an exotropic universe for a while. (+2) However, this worthy attempt at what could have been an interesting rule to play with is negated by a lack of an explict explaination as to how to calculate the binding energy, combined with an example of calculating the energy that I can not follow. The lack of any explaination at all would not have bothered me, being an honorable part of FRC custom. However, the example is, to my thinking, an implict explaination. In this case, the implict explaination of the example leaves me more confused then no explaination at all would have. I can not see from it how any of the indivdual binding energies were arrived at, and would imagine others are just as lost as I am. (-2) 61:5* Ed, Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:44:34 +0100 *VALID* Style: 0 >>>>>>>>>> The 6 atoms in our universe shall be designated as Elements "A", "B", "C", E", "F", and "G". They have, respectively, proportionally increasing atomic weights (AW) (i.e. element "b" has "a"+1 AW, "c" has "b" +1). >>>>>>>>>> validity: I can't find a reason not to validate it. style: Your right, Ed, its not going to gain you any more style points. *61:6* Doug, Fri, 19 Jul 1996 05:19:46 +0100 *VALID* Style: +1.5 >>>>>>>> The Elemental Mirrors Law: Take a formula describing a possible chemical reaction. Pick any of the possible atomic weights. Replace every symbol for the element with the atomic weight you've chosen with the symbol for the element with atomic weight = (atomic weight of G) - (the atomic weight you've chosen) + (atomic weight of A). Then the resulting formula also describes a possible chemical reaction. example: take the formula in 61:1 and replace the A's with G's. The Elemental Mirrors Law tells us that the resulting formula: GB + C -> GBC + BC 2 2 describes a possible chemical reaction. >>>>>>> validity: It's consistent with everything so far. I can't find any reason not to validate it. style: Creative. (+1) But it will definantly give me a headache or two. Of course, if it means headaches for me, then it means potential traps for everyone else. (+0.5) *61:7* Ed, Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:19:57 +0100 *VALID* Style: +1 >>>>>>> Proposal 61.7- Ed Graham Reactions resulting in an elemental substance as one or more byproducts may release energy (Fantastic) or consume energy (Redundant). If the resultant element's total atomic wight is even, then the reaction is fantastic; if the element's atomic weight is odd, it is redundant. The higher the ratio bewtween the overall atomic weight of all compunds and elements used in the reaction to the resultant element that allows the reaction to be fantastic, the greater the release of energy. Example: ACF + BF + G -> AG + BC + F 2 note: the reaction is fantastic. >>>>>>>> validity: Does not say anything about the possiblity of reactions. The example doesn't appear to be a reversible reaction. Just tells us about one result of a certain type of reaction. Looks valid to me. style: Tells us something about FRChemistry without telling us more then it has to. Leaves a lot of area open for exploration. (+1) *61:8* Jeremy, Fri, 19 Jul 1996 19:34:58 +0100 *VALID* Style: +2 >>>>>>> Fantasy rule Chemistry takes place in two dimentions. An interesting consequence of the Irreversibility Law (as stated in 61:3) is the properties of the following molecule (known as "R-nomossane") in the presence of catalytic amounts of the element F: A-B E-A C-E B-C A-B | | + F --> | | + F --> | | + F --> | | + F --> | | + F E-C C-B B-A A-E E-C Note that the symbols "-" and "|" denote chemical bonds. Not surprisingly, energy is absorbed from the environment in the course of each of these (individually) irreversible reactions. >>>>>>> validity: Well, lemme see. The example does not seem to violate anything. What about dimensionality itself? If FRChemistry takes place in two dimensions, does this imply anything for the other examples we have seen? Lets look at them to compare. Here is Ronald's example from 61:1 : AB + C -> ABC + BC 2 2 And here is Ed's corrected reaction from 61:7 : ACF + BF + G -> AG + BC + F 2 Are they occuring in two dimensions? They obviously doesn't say, and we can't make any assumptions either way. There is no real way we can determine any sort of dimensional structure for these reactions. The only way I can reconcile this is to assume that we now have two classes of reactions. One class for which orientation in a two-d space does not matter, and a second for which it does. I feel like I am missing something very subtle, but have to go with the plausible interpetation. So I guess this one is valid. Style: This one is good. I mean real good. Not only does it bring in a new dimension(pun intented), but it lays down a couple of traps that could be deadly as the round runs on. I have a feeling this rule, and the mirror one are going to be the big rule killers when that starts happening. (+2) *61:9* Ed, Sat, 20 Jul 1996 13:40:45 +0100 *INVALID* Style: -1 >>>>>> Elements may fall into three classifications: stable, unstable, and catalytic. All elements are stable when in compund form in combination with another elements. Some elements become catalytic in free form (eg element F) Others remain stable in free form and combine and release normally in chemical reactions. Still others become unstable in free form and are consumed immediately when released through a reaction, becoming heat. The amount of heat is logarithmic to the amount of element released. Element D is unstable. Example: ACD + FG -> AF + CG + {heat}, ACD + FD -> AF + G + {heat x10} >>>>>>> validity: One of Ed's own rules established the nonexistance of the element D. Can't see as how I can let him get off any easier for using it now then I would anyone else. Style: The idea is good. (+1) But the use of an element D, especially coming from Ed, is bad. (-2) *61:10* Ed, Mon, 22 Jul 1996 02:11:25 +0100 *INVALID* Style: +0.5 >>>>> Corollary to the mirror law: When a reaction is fantastic, only mirror reactions that are also fantastic are possible. When a reaction is redundant, only mirror reactions that are also redundant are possible. >>>>> validity: Ok. The atomic weight of A is as of yet, undefined. But, it does not need to be defined for this judgement, because we have the relationship of the other weights to A already defined. 61:5 states that the other elemental weights are porportionally increasing to the weight of A, and further goes on to show that B is one unit heavier then A, and C is two units heavier then A. And while 'D' is not used as a elemental symbol, no such skip is reasonable to assume for the atomic weights. We have an order to the elements, and a simple pattern of increase. The most plausible and mathematical/linguistic interpetation of the definition leads to E being one unit heavier then C, and F being one unit heavier then E, such that G is five units heavier then A. Thus, given that the mirror sets can easily be found, no matter what the actual weights are, it can be seen that the mirror sets all have one even and one odd element. Given this and the fact that the mirror law says that if a reaction is possible, a set of mirror reactions are also possible, one will eventually come to the point of finding that the corollary under consideration is not true. Take the following reaction(which may or may not be possible but for purposes of proving my point will be assumed as such). AB + C --> A + BC Currently it is indeterminant whether this reaction is fantastic or redundant. However, because the mirror element for A is known to be G, and as G is defined as A + 5. No matter what sort of reaction the above is, its a-replaced mirror will be the other type. Thus the invalidity of the rule. Style: I'm sure Ed was thinking that there was a skip in the sequence of weights. This wouldn't even be an unreasonable interpetation, except that not having any skip is an even less unresonable explaination. It was a nice try though, and did settle one matter if nothing else. (+0.5) *61:11* Ed, Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:44:43 +0100 *VALID* Style: +0.5 >>>>>> Law of Catalysts (1): In two dimensional reactions, catalytic elements are elements or elemental compunds with fewer atoms than the compund be acted upon. Example: A-B E-A | | + F --> | | + F [ F is catalytic] E-C C-B And: A-B E-A | | + F --> | | + F [F is again catalytic] E-C 2 C-B 2 but: A-B | | + F -->AE + BC+ F [F is not catalytic] E-C 4 4 >>>>>> validity: Looks fine to me. Would appreciate a corrected version of that last example that doesn't utilize tabbing, however, I (obviously) can judge this one without it. Style: Simple, basic. (+0.5) *61:12: Sharkey, Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:50:13 +0100 *VALID* Style: +1.5 >>>>>> 2-dimensional Corollary to the Mirror Law: When the mirror law is applied to 2-dimentional molecules, any molecules containing mirrored atoms are also mirrored on their y-axis. Here is an example reaction which results from this corollary. It shows the E-nomossane molecule reacting explosively in the presence of a catalyst. B-A A-E E-E E-B B-A | | + F --> | | + F --> | | + F --> | | + F --> | | + F E-E B-E A-B E-A E-E >>>>>> validity: Looks ok to me. Then again I may be missing something, you never know. style: Looked at it and looked at it. Finally hit me as to part of what was being done here. Very clever. (+1.5) *61:13* Jeremy, Wed, 24 Jul 1996 15:41:10 +0100 *INVALID* Style: +2 >>>>>> Part 1: Ed gave the following example in his last rule: > A-B > | | + F -->AE + BC+ F > E-C 4 In his next rule, Ed will thoroughly explain what becomes of the missing atoms of F after this reaction has proceeded. Part 2: Being composed of FRChemicals which are 2-dimensional, FRChemists are flatlanders. Flatlanders are eternally curious about the nature of their universe and so FRChemists devote their lives to understanding the nature of FRChemicals. This rule and all rules submitted after the first week of the round will either describe an experiment conducted by FRChemists (and its interpretation), or explicitly state one of the Laws referred to by rule 61:1. Part 3: FRChemists have discovered that any atom bound to 4 other atoms is unstable and must break down such that that atom has fewer than four bonded neighbors. Understanding the Law of Irreversibility, these scientists have developed a method of creating the highly prized "poly-D" family of molecules (free D, of which they are composed would ordinarily immediately react with the abundant atomic A in the atmosphere). One example of such a feat is given below: a) F-[C-C-C]-F + heat --> C-C-C | 4 / | \ D C D C / \ C-D D-C + F \ / 2 C D C \ | / C-C-C <= Molecule (1) b) Molecule (1) + 4C --> C | C-C-C / | \ C D C / \ C-C-D D-C-C \ / C D C \ | / C-C-C <= Molecule (2) | C c) Molecule (2) --> C | C-C-C / \ C C / D \ C-C D D C-C + heat + pressure \ D / C C \ / C-C-C <= "Cage molecule #1" + | 4D(inside) C d) "Cage molucule #1" + 4D(inside) + heat --> "Cage molecule #1 + D / \ D D(inside) \ / D Note that this feat proves the point that atoms of A cannot traverse across the boundary formed by a molecule such as the "Cage" >>>>> validity: Very nice, however, I've already biffed a rule for using D as an element. Invalid. style: I really like the Flatland part. (+1.5) The explaination rule was fairly pedestrian, but the example that went with it was quite creative. (+1) But the use of D as an element, considering it was already definantly a surefire way to get the rule shot down, wasn't so hot. (-0.5) *61:14* Doug, Thu, 25 Jul 1996 13:17:23 +0100 *VALID* Style: +0.5 >>>>> This rule and all subsequent rules will include at least one fact about FR Chemistry that is neither stated nor implied by prior valid rules. The atomic weight of A is 1. >>>>> validity: Atomic weight of A isn't implied in anything before this. Valid. Style: The first part is simple, and not much different from rules several others have attempted to implace previously. And choosing 1 for the atomic weight of A is the easiest choice that could have been made. A negative number would have been very interesting, and equally valid. ----- Luke Vaughn | Home page: lvaughn@efn.org | http://www.efn.org/~lvaughn SELECTIONS from ECLECTIC MUSIC SURVEY 4: Johann Sebastian Bach "Great composer, but hasn't written much lately." -- Richard Caley