53 bicycles: A lateral thinking puzzle

Thread Games
561

  1. No.

  2. No.

  3. No.

562

Thanks for the pause!

  1. Is Switzerland important to the answer?
  2. Is France important to the answer?
  3. Would he have died on the train?
  4. Did anyone die on this train trip?
  5. Were the windows open on the smoking car?
  6. Is the open windows the reason for his survival?

(I’m realizing, after running one of these, how important it is to make questions simple instead of compound.)

563

  1. Were people actually smoking in the smoking car?

  2. If yes to 1, is this the relevant factor?

  3. Did he at any time borrow a lighter or matches from someone?

  4. Is the fact that this takes place in Europe significant? (other than, they still allow smoking on trains. I think.)

  5. Do his economic circumstances play a role in his choosing a train over a plane?

  6. If no to 5, in there a medical reason?

564

LHOD, I wouldn’t sweat the details: Carbon monoxide has in fact historically been used for such purposes. In other words, chemistry knowledge might be a hindrance, but only if one doesn’t have the history knowledge to make up for it.

I’ll wait on further questions for Mahaloth’s until I see the answers to Rivkah’s. I suspect that her #3 is key.

565

Actually, two questions, just to rule out the obvious:

Did he die anyway?
Was he suffering from extreme nicotine withdrawal?

566

Carbon monoxide poisoning isn’t applying chemistry? Not that I would have got it anyway…

567

I don’t want to distract from the current puzzle, but in looking into matters, here’s what I found:
-Natural gas only seems to kill (other than explosions) by displacing oxygen in the air; it’s far less dangerous than coal gas.
-Coal gas (what was used prior to liquid natural gas) contains carbon monoxide as a component, and this is the deadliest part of the mix.
-Everyone knows that having the gas on if it’s not being burned kills you; knowing the exact method of death means you start asking questions like, “but why wasn’t the fireplace vented?” or “if the room has enough ventilation to supply the fireplace with oxygen, there’s enough ventilation that the natural gas won’t kill you,” that sort of thing. And that’s not even getting into the question of what the odor of coal gas is (the best reference I can find is a 1951 letter to a medical journal, and at that point I realize I’m getting way too deep in the weeds).

So I figured that a little knowledge was, in this case, a salubrious thing :).

568
  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. Yes.
  4. No.
  5. No.
  6. No.
  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, it’s relevant.
  3. No.
  4. No.
  5. No.
  6. No.
  1. No.
  2. No.
569

… This makes absolutely no sense. A natural gas fire does this:

CH[sub]4[/sub] + 2O[sub]2[/sub] –> CO[sub]2[/sub] + 2 H[sub]2[/sub]O

Let’s imagine two otherwise identical rooms, with equal amounts of CH[sub]4[/sub] being pumped in, with the only difference being that in one room the CH[sub]4[/sub] is burning and the other it isn’t. The room where it’s burning will have LESS oxygen and MORE CO[sub]2[/sub].

Even ignoring the removal of O[sub]2[/sub], as to displacement of air with CH[sub]4[/sub]: if it’s on fire the displacement is at least as bad, with as much CO[sub]2[/sub] being produced as there was CH[sub]4[/sub] in the no-fire room, and CO[sub]2[/sub] is always going to be worse than an equal amount of any inert-to-breathing gas.

Extinguishing the fire makes the room far safer with respect to asphyxiation. The room was a deathtrap from the start, and his lover lessened the danger by stopping the combustion.

570

SEE! THIS is why I say a knowledge of chemistry is an impediment!

With that I think I’d better be done with this discussion. :slight_smile:

571

Okay, to recap:
-A dude on a train, doesn’t matter the origin or destination, would have died during his train trip had he not been on the smoking car. The fact that people were smoking is relevant to his survival. The windows were closed, and he didn’t borrow a lighter or matches.

  1. Is that an accurate summary?
  2. Would he have died due to a pre-existing medical condition (e.g., heart disease)?
  3. Would he have died due to homicide?
  4. Did he survive due to deliberate intervention by another person in the smoking car?
572
  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. No.
573

So, not a pre-existing condition, not homicide.

  1. Would he have died due to an accidental injury?
  2. Would he have died due to a sudden medical emergency such as a stroke?
  3. Would he have committed suicide?
574

Did the non-smoking car break off from the rest of the train and fall off?

575
  1. Would he have lived in the non-smoking car if there had been a lit candle sitting next to him?
  2. Did he have an unusual medical condition? (I’ll uncompound the previous question to not require that this was the proximate cause of death for a yes response.)
  3. Were there any unusual contaminants in the air in either or both cars, other than cigarette/cigar smoke?
576

Well, we know no one died, but this could be true if it had been vacant…
4. Were all the non-smoking cars unoccupied?
5. Was he in the smoking car?

577
  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. Yes.

No.

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  1. No.
  2. No.
578
  1. Was he the conductor?
  2. Did the smoke keep him awake, preventing him from falling asleep at the controls?
  3. Was he some other employee of the train?
  4. Was he a stowaway?
  5. Was he a refugee/fugitive/etc who would have been caught and executed if he’d been in the non-smoking car?
579
  1. Did he have a severe allergy?
  2. Did an open flame purify the air in some way?
  3. Was the light given off by a candle or a lit cigarette relevant?
  4. Was he in a sleeper car?
580
  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. No.
  5. No.
  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. Yes.
  4. Irrelevant or “no”.