>>856

>Was it something inside of him?
No.

>>857

>Did "it" melt because it was moved?
Maybe.

>Did "it" melting trigger a chemical reaction between "it" and the weapon?
No.

>>860

Was it his shoes?

>>860
Did it being moved cause it to be moved away from something that was preventing it from melting?

>>861

>Was it his shoes?
No.

>>862

>Did it being moved cause it to be moved away from something that was preventing it from melting?
No.

>>863

Was it....Something on his waist?

>>863
Did something break or stop working when it was moved?

Was it worn around the neck?

>>864
>he believes in ghosts.

>Was it....Something on his waist?
Nope.

>>865

>Did something break or stop working when it was moved?
No.

>>866

>Was it worn around the neck?
Yes.

>>868
Was it used for entertainment purposes?

>>867

Of course I believe in them, I've seen them before.

Ugh, I'm getting tired. One more.

Was it a stop watch?

>>869

>Was it used for entertainment purposes?
No.

>>870

>Was it a stop watch?
No.

>>871
Was it a container?

>>871

Well anyway I'm done now. Too tired to really give it anymore thought. It was fun. I didn't get close to the answer though.

>>872

>Was it a container?
Maybe.

>>873
Feel free to stick around and observe.

>>874

I will. I will.

>>874
Was it made of glass?

>>874
Did "it" contain something?

Did "it" contain the weapon?

>>876

>Was it made of glass?
No.

>>877

>Did "it" contain something?
Yes.

>Did "it" contain the weapon?
Yes.

>>878
Did the container melt?

>>878
Did the weapon explode because of contact with the open air?

Did the weapon explode because of contact with water?

>>879

>>879

>Did the container melt?
Yes.

>>880

>Did the weapon explode because of contact with the open air?
No.

>Did the weapon explode because of contact with water?
Yes.

Did the explosion cause `it` to melt?

>>884

>Did the explosion cause `it` to melt?
No.

>>883
>>881
Was the weapon a compound?

I can't stop myself, I'm sorry.

Was it a small bomb?

>>887

>Was the weapon a compound?
No.

>>888

>Was it a small bomb?
Maybe.

"It" is a container of sorts.
"It" contained the weapon.
There was water in "it" as well.
The weapon reacted with water and exploded.
The weapon is a Group 1 Metal.

>>890

>"It" is a container of sorts.
Yes.

>"It" contained the weapon.
Yes.

>There was water in "it" as well.
No.

>The weapon reacted with water and exploded.
Yes.

>The weapon is a Group 1 Metal.
Yes.

>>891

Well, so what now. The thing that melted was a container for a small bomb?

Does the weapon react violently when introduced to water?

>>891
Was the weapon made of potassium?

Was the weapon made with potassium?

>>892

>The thing that melted was a container for a small bomb?
Maybe.

>>893

>Does the weapon react violently when introduced to water?
Yes.

>>894

>Was the weapon made of potassium?
No.

>Was the weapon made with potassium?
No.

>>896
Well, I guess it doesn't matter as much which alkali metal it is, they're all pretty violently reactive with water after sodium.

Still haven't got a clue what caused "it" to melt though. Did water enter "it" before it melted?

>>895

The container melted because it was hovering over the boiling pot of water in the kitchen.

>>897

>Did water enter "it" before it melted?
No.

>>898

>The container melted because it was hovering over the boiling pot of water in the kitchen.
No.

>>900

It is a...Container.

>>899
Well, yeah, there's that too. All I know about "it" is that it contained the weapon, which was apparently an alkali metal.

Was "it" made of salt?

>>901

>It is a...Container.
Not quite.

>>902

>Was "it" made of salt?
"It" is not salt.

>>903

Has "it" been put into water before without it melting?

>>904
Is "it" composed of sodium?

Did "it" melt because of contact with the water?

>>905

>Has "it" been put into water before without it melting?
Yes.

>>907

It is a thermometer.

>>906

>Is "it" composed of sodium?
No.

>Did "it" melt because of contact with the water?
No.

>>908

>It is a thermometer.
It isn't.

>>891
"It" is made of plastic.

"It" is made of styrofoam.

"It" is a necklace.

"It" is a neck brace.

"He" put "it" on his neck.
"It" prevented water from coming into contact with the weapon inside "it".
"It" was melted.
Water came into contact with the weapon and caused a violent reaction, killing "him".

>>910

Eh!? Really? I thought I had it there. The perfect container.

>>910
Was "it" a battery?

>>911

>It is made of plastic.
No.

>It is made of styrofoam.
No.

>It is a necklace.
Yes.

>It is a neck brace.
No.

>"He" put it on his neck.
Yes.

>"It" prevented water from coming into contact with the weapon inside "it".
Yes.

>"It" was melted.
Yes.

>Water came into contact with the weapon and caused a violent reaction, killing "him".
Yes.

>>913

>Was it a battery?
No.

>>914
"It" is carbon, or better yet, diamond da.

1) It came into contact with him, and if he had not been touching it he would not have died.
2) It melted, but not strictly due to being heated. However, it was heated until it melted.
3) It normally melts in everyday usage, and is not normally dangerous, whether melted or not.
4) He picked it up with his hands, but this isn't what caused it to melt. He didn't ingest it. It melted after he picked it up.
5) He didn't know it might melt, or even that it was there at all.
6) It's considered a "compound" and a "mixture", but not an element.
7) It can be found in some peoples' kitchens (including that of the Game Master). It is edible and used in cooking; it would not be strange for it to be an ingredient in a recipe. It has a pungent smell and is used for cleaning.
8) It was used in combination with a weapon, and was heated until it melted.
9) It is not soap, alcohol, metal, or ice/water.
10) It is something that can be worn. It was worn around his neck.
11) He died the moment it melted.

>>914
"It" is a material commonly used for necklaces.

"It" is candy, like from a candy necklace.

"It" is sugar.

>>915

>"It" is carbon, or better yet, diamond da.
No, da.

>>917

>"It" is a material commonly used for necklaces.
Yes.

>"It" is candy, like from a candy necklace.
No.

>"It" is sugar.
No.

>>916
"It" is acidic.

"It" is alkaline.

This doesn't make any sense but...Is it vinegar?

>>919

>"It" is acidic.
No.

>"It" is alkaline.
No.

>>920

>Is it vinegar?
No.

>>918
... "It" is gold!

"It" is silver!

"It" is titanium!

"It" is an alloy!

>>921
The necklace is made of brass.

The necklace is made of iron.

>>921

Is it coal?

>>921
Is "it" baking soda?

I can't think of many things that necklaces are made of that double as cleaning agents and are used in cooking. I'm thinking, though.

>>922

>... "It" is gold!
... No!

>"It" is silver!
No!

>"It" is titanium!
No!

>"It" is an alloy!
No!

>>923

>The necklace is made of brass.
No.

>The necklace is made of iron.
No.

>>924

>Is it coal?
No.

>>925

>Is "it" baking soda?
No.

>>926
"It" is an organic material.

"It" is an inorganic material.

"It" is not crystal.

"It" is a seed.

"It" is a nut.

Was it used to blow bubbles?

>>926
If Audra knows, she should probably just say it. I'm at a loss right now.

Please confirm or deny these two statements. I want to make sure I properly understand the current game state.

1) The victim was wearing a necklace, which had a pendant made of Substance X containing an explosive substance.
2) When "it" - worn around the victim's neck - melted, this resulted in the explosive substance detonating.

>>927

>"It" is an organic material.
Yes.

>"It" is an inorganic material.
No.

>"It" is not crystal.
Yes.

>"It" is a seed.
No.

>"It" is a nut.
No.

>>928

>Was it used to blow bubbles?
No.

>>929
I've had a lot of other things going on this evening, so I've only been able to check up on the thread occasionally. It might take me a bit to catch up.

>>930

>1) The victim was wearing a necklace, which had a pendant made of Substance X containing an explosive substance.
Yes.

>2) When "it" - worn around the victim's neck - melted, this resulted in the explosive substance detonating.
And yes.

>>931
Ice. Was "it" ice?

Was the explosive substance nitroglycerine? I seem to remember that coming up in the last thread, too.
Was he taking a shower?
Was he taking a bath?

>>934

>Ice. Was "it" ice?
It isn't.

>>935

>Was the explosive substance nitroglycerine? I seem to remember that coming up in the last thread, too.
No.

>Was he taking a shower?
Yes.

>Was he taking a bath?
No.

Vis a vis the substance the pendant is made of: would it normally melt if exposed to steam or hot water?

>>937
Did he die of electrocution?

>>938

>Vis a vis the substance the pendant is made of: would it normally melt if exposed to steam or hot water?
Yes.

>>939

>Did he die of electrocution?
No.

Was there a culprit?
If so, did the culprit give the victim the necklace?

If these two are correct, a nearly complete theory can be constructed - missing only the specific substances used to make the pendant and the explosive.

>>937

Dirt.

>>941

>Was there a culprit?
Yes.

>If so, did the culprit give the victim the necklace?
Yes.

Actually. Is it made out of cyanide?

>>942

>Dirt
No.

>>944

>Actually. Is it made out of cyanide?
No.

>>941
I am pretty sure that all we are missing is the substance "it."

Which is something that easily melts in steam and hot water, used in cooking, edible, organic, pungent, can be used as a cleaning agent, and contained the weapon used to kill someone.

When "it" melted away, the weapon inside reacted to the water, exploding and killing "him."

I still haven't got a clue what "it" is yet.

>>945

Does it contain cyanide?

>>946
Garlic?

Was it a type of food?

>>947

>Does it contain cyanide?
Nope.

>>948

>Garlic?
No.

>Was it a type of food?
No.

>>948
I don't think garlic is used for cleaning.

Well, it's relatively straightforward.

The culprit wished to kill the victim without leaving a trace. So they gave the victim a necklace with a pendant of some kind. The pendant was made of Substance Y - which either reacts violently with steam or reacts violently when jostled - encased in Substance X - which melts when heated and moistened. The victim entered the shower, and the trap was activated; X melted, releasing Y, which exploded, which killed him.

I've got no head for chemistry, so obviously I will need help solving for Substances X and Y.

>>949

.......Can it be found in the kitchen?

Can it be found in the living room?

Can it be found in the bathroom?

>>951
Well, that's pretty close to what we've been saying, yeah.

"The necklace had a pendant made of "it." "It" melted away in the shower, revealing the "weapon," which exploded on contact with the water."

The weapon is probably an alkali metal, as it confirmed as a type 1 metal and several of those are volatile with water.

I just don't know what "it" is, and I've used up the extent of my knowledge of chemistry at this point.

Was it made of gelatin?
Or wax?
How about paper?

>>954

>wax?
Yes.

>>954
Hm. Wax sounds good.

So now we just have Substance Y - the explosive. Is this something we have to solve to "win"?

>>957
I was going to post the actual scenario now if there are no objections.

>>957
I was thinking of wax earlier for a completely different reason, but dropped it when candles were ruled out. Guess I should have thought of the other kind of wax.

If she wants the last bit, we can go down the list.

>>954

Wait a second, didn't I already say wax awhile ago?