Christian 1999-11-26 15:59:33 GMT +5 JUDGE John 1999-11-23 15:05:38 GMT +5 Andy 1999-11-21 15:43:29 GMT +1 Karl 1999-11-22 22:41:31 GMT +1 Ronald 1999-11-24 15:15:11 GMT +6 WIZARD Henry 1999-11-20 15:43:29 GMT +1 everyone else 1999-11-22 15:43:29 GMT ELEMENTS In order mentioned (this excludes @-forms): Frconium Frc? 16? Aluminum Al 1 Rulium R 1 Berrylium B 1 Murlitite M 3 Frangelicum Fg 1 --------- Ronald mixed all pairs of elements above this line Fabienium Fb 2 Trollium T 2 Lead Pb 1 Gold Au 3 ---------Christian mixed everything above *this* line Nougatite N 5 Atium A 3 Coughy Cy 8 Taffy Ty 7 Nurf Nu 1 Alchoholium Ac? ? Flem F? 4 (is that the same as Phlegm?) By Tier: 1 Al B Fg Nu Pb R 2 Fb T 3 A Au M 4 F 5 N 6 7 Ty 8 Cy Unknown: Frc, Ac REACTIONS R (1) + B (1) = Fb (2) R (1) + Fg (1) = T (2) Fb (2) + B (1) = M (3) T (1) + Nu (1) = A(3) M (3) + T(2) = N (5) N (5) + T(2) = Ty (7) N (5) + A(3) = Cy (8) Cy (8) ---> F(4) Nu (1) ---> spontaneous combustion? small N (5) + large A(3) = @T (2) 1 T (2) + 32 Pb (1) = Au (3) cleonhar@adpims.com wrote: > Rule 126:1 > >>>>> > All rules must name a hitherto unknown element, e.g. Frconium. > <<<<< > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-15 15:43:29 GMT Obviously VALID. It's very difficult for Judges, on the first rule, to resist saying "It's very difficult to post an INVALID first rule," but I will resist. Well, the restriction is dull. So far sounds more like Chemistry than Alchemy. So I give it -1 Style. John M Goodman II wrote: > Begin Rule>>>>> > > As I pondered my failed attempt to combine aluminum and Rulium, I realized > that we must never allow two consecutive rules that do not allude to an > attempt to create Frconium, if we are ever to reach our goal of creating > this rare element from more common substances. > > <<<<< > -John > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-15 15:58:36 GMT I judge it VALID. It steers the round slightly back toward Alchemy. +1. Note to future rules: I would like to have restrictions on the ways elements can be combined, transmuted or otherwise processed. I don't want this round to become (merely) "name an element that makes the Judge laugh", but also "develop interesting relationships between already existing elements" and "find general principles about elements". Andy Stefanski wrote: > 126:3 ------ > > After years of experimentation, mostly resulting in complete and utter > failure, some key properties of elements have shown themselves to me. > > It appears that each element can have it's properties that are important to > the alchemical processes be summed up nicely in a string of letters > (elstring). You can somehow determine important features of how multiple > elements will react to each other from this elstring. Fortunately, the > elstring is related to the densities of the elements themselves - any element > that would have a elstring of longer than 7 letters is too unstable to be > usable in alchemy. > > ------------ > > Rule Date: 1999-11-15 17:13:56 GMT Unfortunately 126:1 says that each rule must name a "hitherto unknown" element. 126:3 does not name any element. Therefore it must be INVALID. Style: Would have been an interesting setup rule for future rules. +1 Karl Low wrote: > >>>>>Begin 126:4 > You're lucky the attempt just failed and didn't blow your lab to > smithereens, John. Rulium tends to combine rather explosively with other > elements. I've lost three good assistants trying to mix it with Berrylium, > Murlitite, and Frangelicum. What was truly disturbing was that I later heard > someone else had encountered the same results. If that person had let me > know beforehand I might well have Frconium in my grasp by now. That's why > any further rules to the committee must provide the results of at least one > experiment that has not been previously announced. > End 126:4<<<<< > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-15 22:41:31 GMT VALID. Nice rule. +1 Style. Ronald Kunne wrote: 126:5 > >>>> > In an effort to shed some light on the problem at hand, > I tried a step by step approach. I think we all have to be > more systematic in our further investigations. > > >From previous experiments that ended in explosions, we know > already that mixing more than two elements at the time is > impossible. > I therefore mixed all the possible pairs of the elements mentionned > so far. None of these produced the ferocious Frconium we're looking for. > > In fact only two did give some a new elements. One of those > -the Rulium + Berrylium mixture- I call Fabienium. > The other I will keep a secret, it looks...interesting to say the least. > >>>>> > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-16 12:54:37 GMT An interesting point about this rule. Frconium *is* an element named so far. However this is not inconsistant, as Frconium has only been described as *rare*, not *nonexistant*. After all, people had gold before they had alchemy. Note: Frconium need not be destroyed when mixed with these other elements. They just aren't *produced* by the reaction. So VALID Style: +2. John M Goodman II wrote: 126:6 > Being Rule>>>>> > > I feel I am close to success. I mixed one part Trollium with thirty-two > parts lead. > > The reaction went smoothly, and when I saw a glitter from the resulting > material, I thought I had found our element. Unfortunantly, after > extensive testing, it turned out to merely be gold. > > I believe Trollium is a key ingredient... and fear the other may be one > that our colleage is keeping secret. These secrets prohibit our search > for knowledge. From now on, no knowledge of alchemic practices shall be > purposely hidden. > > <<<<< > -John M. Goodman II > the failing Alchemist > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-16 15:05:38 GMT VALID it is. +3 Style. Very on theme. Great humor. The restriction is a little more restrictive than first appears, I think... cleonhar@adpims.com wrote: > Rule 126:7 > >>>>> > In accordance with the new spirit of full disclosure, I thought I'd share > my findings with the group: > > Rulium + Frangelicum = Trollium (sorry to let the cat out of the bag, > Ronald) > Fabienium + Berrylium = Murlitite > Trollium + Murlitite = Nougatite > > My experiments demonstrate quite conclusively that no other combination of > previously-mentioned elements yields anything which has not already been > noted in a previous rule. I share John's conviction that Trollium holds the > key to the production of Frconium, but, unfortunately, Trollium and > Nougatite unite to create nothing but a delicious, taffy-like substance. > > >From here on in, all experiments must involve Trollium, or a Trollium > derivative (e.g., gold, Nougatite). > <<<<< > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-16 16:32:33 GMT VALID. Good, but nothing too exciting. +1 Style. John M Goodman II wrote: 126:8 > Begin Rule>>>>> > > I was experimenting with Atium and Nougatite, while chewing a bit of the > latter--you're right, that stuff is delicious. > Anyway, the two produced a reddish powder, which I unintentionally > inhaled. > > I'm still suffering a hacking cough as a result. > > But, to the point, when I inhaled the powder, which I call Cough-y, I > coughed so hard that the nougatite I was chewing flew from my mouth and > landed in a large collection of Atium. Apparently, in such large > quantities, Atium changes Nougatite back into a form very similar to > Trollium. I've dubbed this @Trollium. > > Unfortunantly, soon after the formation of the @Trollium, and before I > could determine the ratio of Nougatite to Atium needed for this reaction, > the entire concotion exploded. No doubt this is because a bit of my own > saliva was mixed in with the two elements. We all know what a three > element reaction does. > > But it seems we have been shortsighted. Most of our experiments, up to > now, have been mixing elements in even proportions. It is obvious now > that some of our experiments should be done in uneven proportions, and > from now on all experiment data must include the ratio of one element to > the other, when that information is available. > > <<<<< > -John M. Goodman II > Sorry for the length > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-16 17:26:35 GMT VALID. Good point about the proportions. However, it's not Nougatite that was declared delicious in the last rule, but the combination of Nougatite with Trollium. In all, +1 Style. Ronald Kunne wrote: > >>>> > Warning to all Alchemists. > > I discovered an new property of Trollium which is very troublesome. > Every time when Trollium is mentioned in a rule, all other elements > which are also mentioned in that rule can only appear once more in > a subsequent rule. > You want proof? I just sent off my stock of Vulgarium to John. > If he will use it more than once, you will see what it'll do > for the validity of his experiments (and rules). > > About Vulgarium: > I don't see any use for the stuff, John might as well burn it. > (And yes, I did try that, but no cigar: it disappears in thin air. > Even when mixed with Trollium in any possible proportion.) > >>>>> > > > Greetings, > Ronald > > > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-17 15:26:10 GMT Validity: You fell for the Goodman trap! According to 126:2, I must not allow two consecutive rules not to mention Frconium. 126:8 did not allude to the creation of Frconium, and neither does this. INVALID. Style: Would have been very interesting +2 Style. Henry Towsner wrote: > The round looks interesting, and I have a paper due at 4... > > Start 126:10 > As an apprentice, I'm not really supposed to do experiments > on my own, but last night I snuck into a lab (I'm not saying whose) > and did a few experiments of my own. I found the secret stash of > @Trollium with just a dash of regular Trollium (unfortunately I > didn't record the exact proportions). To my surprise, the result was > several times as much Trollium as I began with. > I guess it the middle of the experiment I didn't realize that > the janitor must have seen me, because while I was still examining > the new Trollium, I was arrested for breaking and entering. I was > put in jail, but while there I realized that there must be an @ form > of each element which, when any quantity is mixed with the normal > form, produces somewhere between 3 and 4 times as much of the regular > form as there was to start with. So if we can make @Frconium, we can > mix it with Frconium to get lots of Frconium. > Every rule from here on should increase our knowledge of @ > forms, either by producing a new one or determining some fact about > them. Also, could someone bail me out please? > End 126:10 > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-17 18:49:36 GMT Does this rule name a new element? Trollium, @Trollium, and Frconium have been mentioned in previous rules. This leaves only @Frconium. The question then arises: Do the @ versions count as different elements? 126:8 was unclear as to whether @Trollium was a form of Trollium, or only an element with similar properties. This rule, however, says, "I realized that there must be an @ *form* of each element." This would imply that @Frconium is the same "element" as Frconium. This rule is thus INVALID. Style: I like the idea of there being an @ form of each element. I give +1 Style to this rule (would have given more if it had been VALID). cleonhar@adpims.com wrote: > Rule 126:11 > >>>>> > Big news, friends! While my recent attempts to combine Trollium with Nurf > have failed to produce the desired Frconium (yielding, instead, nothing but > common Atium when mixed in roughly equal proportions), they have provided > me with the key to unlocking the mysteries of the @-elements. Their secret > was revealed to me when I realized that all elements can be categorized > into a system of tiers, with the first tier being comprised of the > naturally-occurring, atomic elements -- those which cannot be derived from > any elemental combination -- and subsequent tiers being made up of those > elements derived from combinations of lower-tier elements. One can easily > derive the tier of any element by adding together the tiers of the two > elements from which it can be directly derived (and, yes, as we have long > suspected, I can confirm that any element can only be produced by one > specific combination of elements). I have transcribed here a tier table for > all elements mentioned to date (except for Frconium, of course, which > remains a mystery): > > Tier 1: Aluminum (Al), Berrylium (B), Frangelicum (Fg), Lead (Pb), Nurf > (Nu), Rulium (R) > Tier 2: Fabienium (Fb), Trollium (T) > Tier 3: Gold (Au), Atium (A), Murlitite (M) > Tier 4: ? > Tier 5: Nougatite (N) > Tier 6: ? > Tier 7: Taffy (Ty) > Tier 8: Coughy (Cy) > > @-elements are produced whenever extremely disproportional amounts (ratios > of greater than 2:1) of non-atomic elements are combined, with the product > being a highly unstable @-variant of an element occupying the tier > represented by the difference between the tiers of the two conjoined > elements. What would happen, you ask, if the elements being mixed were of > the same tier? Would some hypothetical 'zero tier' element be created? Or > would creation simply cease to exist? I, for one, am in no hurry to find > out, and it is for this reason that none of us must ever undertake such an > experiment. > <<<<< > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-17 20:05:10 GMT Validity: This rule names Nurf as its new element. It alludes to our attempt to create Frconium. Does it announce the results of a new experiment? I shall assume that the phrase "@-elements are produced whenever extremely disproportional amounts of of non-atomic elements are combined" is the result of experiments done by this noble alchemist. The Trollium + Lead reaction is consistant with this rule; Lead is an atomic element so it need not produce an @-element. What about where 126:7 mixes "all combinations" of previously mentioned elements-- does this imply that he mixed them in uneven proportions as well? I think it does not. This rule is self consistant as well. Note that it implies that @-elements are indeed regarded as different elements. VALID (whew!) Style: Being VALID after two invalid rules in a row is worth something. This rule is *almost* INVALID on several different counts-- this too I suppose is stylish. It also puts all reactions to date into a grand framework. A tad long compared to the other rules, though. I give it +2 Style. Henry Towsner wrote: > Start 126:12 > Wow, I had the weirdest dream last night. I was doing some > experiment, and I got arrested or something. Very strange. It > inspired me, however, to mix Coughy and Taffy at a ratio of 1.5 to 1, > and then at 1 to 1.5. To my surprise, neither experiment worked. > The two elements refused to react. I have realized that this is > because the combined element would by Tier 15, and there are no Tier > 15 elements. In fact, no element besides Frconium is above Tier 8. > This led to my next experiment, where I mixed Nougatite and Gold to > get Mailite. Mailite and Coughy are also inert, but I have realized > that Frconium must be a Tier 16 element. If we could only find the > two Tier 8's needed to make it... > End 126:12 > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-18 09:30:41 GMT VALID. I am forced to conclude that Henry has mixed Mailite and Coughy without recording the proportion in which it was mixed-- rather sloppy practice for an alchemist. Nice bit about the dream though. I give you 0 Style. Later: I just found a horrible problem with this rule. If Frconium is Tier 16, and you mix it with an Tier 1 element in extreme proporions, you should get (by 126:11) the @ version of an element on Tier 15. But according to this rule there is no Tier 15! Unless or until someone points out a flaw in this reasoning, I will have to change my Judgement on this to INVALID. cleonhar@adpims.com wrote: > Rule 126:13 > >>>>> > I've managed to ascertain that there is in each tier a single volatile > element. Any elemental mixture including a volatile element will always > explode; any combination lacking such will never do so (@-elements, of > course, will always explode, regardless of their provenance). For safety's > sake, I must insist that, in future, anyone reporting an explosive > combination to the group make explicit reference to the fact that it is > explosive. For example, just this morning I produced quite a violent > explosion by inserting a 5mg Rulium pellet into an 8mg wad of Nougatite. A > small quantity of a new 6th tier element, Gummium, was also produced. > P.S. For the record, my earlier attempt to create Frconium by mixing > Fabienium with Berrylium also exploded. > <<<<< > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-18 19:09:07 GMT INVALID. 3 element combinations always end in explosions, even if there are no volatile elements in it. Style: 0 Ronald Kunne wrote: > More work for the judge! > > >>>>> > In the rubble of Ronalchemist's laboratorium the following notes were > found.... (the next rule shall explain the obvious reason why this > accident happened). > > Knowing that these other alchemists prefer to make Alcoholium > in their test tubes, rather than working on The Problem, I have > no doubt they missed the following puzzling fact. > > Quite a few of the non-atomic elements are instable. Leave them alone > for a while and they can react with themselves and change. > > This made me think of the following experiment. Assuming Frconium > to be a Tiers 16 element I took a quantity of Trollium and left it > in a quiet part of my bench. > Indeed after a few days, it had changed in something else which > tested out as a Tier 4 element (obviously). > > The stuff is still on my bench and it seems to be changing to, > but maybe my Nurfy-fumed eyes are playing my tricks? > > In any case, my hopes are obvious: the auto-reactions double > the Tiers and after Tier-2, 4 and 8 Frconium will be the endresult. > >>>>>> > > Greetings, > Ronald > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-19 15:15:11 GMT VALID. +2 Style, especially in light of the next rule. cleonhar@adpims.com wrote: > Rule 126:15 > >>>>> > Oops! Sorry, Ronald, I was a bit short of Trollium, so I took the liberty > of borrowing some of yours. In exchange, however, I left you a sample of a > new 4th tier element I discovered by allowing a large amount of Coughy to > decay for several days. I call it Flem. It turns out that any inert element > will, in time, transmute itself into an element occupying a tier exactly > half that of its originial tier. This new element will NOT be inert. > Sorry, again, for the confusion, but trying to create Frconium by > 'autodoubling'? Really, now! How will you ever make any real progress > unless you abandon these absurd fantasies of yours? > BTW, what do you make of these rumors about Nurf supplies spontaneously > combusting? Sounds unlikely to me, but I brought you big box of the stuff > for you to test. It's under your desk. > <<<<< > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-19 15:59:33 GMT Validity: If inert is meant to mean not participating in any reactions this rule would be INVALID. I shall therefore instead interpret it (unless another rule defines it precicely) as not participating in any reactions *with other elements besides itself* So VALID. Style: BOOM!!! +3 Style Ronald Kunne wrote: (126:16) > >>>>>> > I tested my Frconium supply on the presence of other elements. And yes, > small quantities of a new Tier 5 element were found, indicating that > decay had happened. > > I baptised this element Chrismium to encourage the activities of my > esteemed -though obviously less experienced- collegue. > > >From Wal's Law [1] we know that their are three elements in > Tier 5, but it is clear that Chrismium doesn't react with any of them > them, in any proportion. (Hindsight....I have to admit that I tried. > Never skip a go at the Alnobel Prize is my motto.) > > Chrismium does however react with Trollium, when mixed one to one. > > To let this alchemistic puzzle be solved at last: in future rules an > alchemical law shall be included. > > [1] Wal's Law: Any Tier contains a number of elements which is either one, > or eigth minus the Tier number. > > >>>>>>> > > Greetings, > Ronald > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-24 16:30:33 GMT So if you mixed Chrismium with other Tier 5 elements in *all possible proportions*, doesn't that imply that you mixed them in ratios of 2:1 or higher? And doesn't that mean you did the fobidden experiment that we must never do for fear that the creation of a 0-Tier element will void the universe? INVALID. Style: +1 P.S. Ronald has less than 1 day of eligibility remaining now (Christian has about 2). Ronald Kunne wrote: (126:17) > A l'improviste...tomorrow I will not be at work. > > >>>> > >From the alchemist exercise book: > 1) Mix Ironium and Trollium in equal proportions. Heat the mixture. > Identify the characteristic red powder as being Coughy. > Why could no other element have been possible formed? > 2) What can we deduce from the fact that Frconium does not decay? > 3) As Flem and Nurf do not interact, it has been suggested that Frconium > can be produced by a reaction of two other elements in the same two Tiers. > Write down all one-to-one reactions involving Trollium that might produce > these hypothetical new elements. Why is the creation of Frconium along > these lines nevertheless doomed to failure? > >>>>> > > Greetings, > Ronald-who-does-not-like-the-word-any-any-bit > > -- > Rule Date: 1999-11-24 17:56:54 GMT Coughy was earlier made from Atium and Nougatite. Now it is being made from Ironium and Trollium. 126:11 says that "any element can only be produced from one specific combination of elements". So INVALID. Style: -1 Unless someone disputes this rule's INVALIDITY, this round is over. Christian will be the Judge of Round 127, and Ronald (at +6 Style) will be the Wizard. The Wizard Judge of Round 126, Aron Wall -- Rule Date: 1999-12-06 04:33:32 GMT