Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game
Other Topics => Off-Topic Discussions => Science => Topic started by: Demonite on March 20, 2013, 04:48:15 pm
-
What if we can control one of the periodic table elements? Recently, I'm thinking about it. It's just somewhat cool to have that ability. But we'll have that one hell of a war.
-
There's an Anime about it , IIRC. I'd reckon using Fe. Or whatever it'd be in English.
-
Fe - Ferrum - Iron
I'll take control over Oxygen.
-
Vanadium, so I can take over the world with ALL the Wardens! :p
-
Carbon, it makes the coolest molecules.
-
Arsenic of course!!!! :D ;D :P
-
Hmm... I thought this was going to be about ETG elements, and I was going to say time, because time travel would be so awesome. If it's real elements, I'd either go with something like carbon (control over living things) or an extremely valuable element like gold, platinum, iridium, and so on.
-
Definitely hydrogen; it's the most common element in the universe and is a big part of virtually every organic compound.
-
Order of preference:
1) Carbon/Hydrogen: as said above, they're cool because they're the fundaments of our molecules. Also, by controlling Hydrogen you can control stars!
2) Helium: to make funny voices
3) Uranium: space travel/epic atomic war FTW
-
There's an Anime about it , IIRC. I'd reckon using Fe. Or whatever it'd be in English.
Seikon no qwaser? I found the manga few days after I was thinking about it. OTL
-
Indeed, that one it is. I never really got into it, only know the story overview.. seems kind of.. odd?
Anyway.
-
Sulfur. I don't like people being able to smell good things.
-
All while I remove the air some of you breathe while poison others with too much oxygen.
-
While you forgot that O2 is technically a compound, therefore you need special power (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RequiredSecondaryPowers) to control that.
If it's single element, the most useful and versatile one is Carbon indeed.
1. It's used in too many compounds, should you be able to control it. From poison to food to weapon.
2. Even if you can only control -pure- element, pure carbon can be turned into graphite or diamond, for strength or if you want to plain suffocate people.
Against Arsenic? Just swallow some and absorb the poison.
Against Oxygen removal? Just take some carbon dioxide and remove the carbon. Fresh air voila!
Against metallic elements? Well, carbon shield is always useful.
Against Sulfur, carbon can filter all those filthy air too.
Against Hydrogen, just fuse them and you get hydrocarbon compounds (preferably poisonous) to counter.
As an extra bonus, you can easily get drunk too. (alcohol is C2H5OH)
-
I assumed the control of individual elements also meant the control of relevant compounds.
-
I assumed the control of individual elements also meant the control of relevant compounds.
What if we can control one of the periodic table elements?
-
I assumed the control of individual elements also meant the control of relevant compounds.
What if we can control one of the periodic table elements?
Yes, An element. By manipulating the oxygen molecules in a compound, can one not control the entire thing?
-
I assumed the control of individual elements also meant the control of relevant compounds.
What if we can control one of the periodic table elements?
Yes, An element. By manipulating the oxygen molecules in a compound, can one not control the entire thing?
No.
-
When one tows an object, do they not carry the entirety of the load, not just where it is harnessed?
-
When one tows an object, do they not carry the entirety of the load, not just where it is harnessed?
That's not controlling, just lugging around. You're not changing any properties or exerting any other action that would really constitute controlling.
-
When one tows an object, do they not carry the entirety of the load, not just where it is harnessed?
That's not controlling, just lugging around. You're not changing any properties or exerting any other action that would really constitute controlling.
I don't recall ever saying anything regarding changing any properties. At least not chemical. Wouldn't it feasible to say that with control over Oxygen, one may be able to manipulate water molecules simply by having the Oxygen carry it around? To be able to manipulate how close and how fast molecules, and subsequently the compounds they make up, react with each other to change physical properties [e.g. limiting molecular movement in water in a compressed state to turn it to ice, to speed up its actions to generate heat and, as a result, steam]?
-
When one tows an object, do they not carry the entirety of the load, not just where it is harnessed?
That's not controlling, just lugging around. You're not changing any properties or exerting any other action that would really constitute controlling.
I don't recall ever saying anything regarding changing any properties. At least not chemical. Wouldn't it feasible to say that with control over Oxygen, one may be able to manipulate water molecules simply by having the Oxygen carry it around? To be able to manipulate how close and how fast molecules, and subsequently the compounds they make up, react with each other to change physical properties [e.g. limiting molecular movement in water in a compressed state to turn it to ice, to speed up its actions to generate heat and, as a result, steam]?
That sounds to me like controlling Water, not Oxygen.
-
Yes. Controlling water by means of controlling the oxygen molecule in it.
-
Yes. Controlling water by means of controlling the oxygen molecule in it.
To control water, in the pretext that you can only control one element, should not be possible. You'd need the power to control both Oxygen and Hydrogen. Manipulating the part /= manipulating the whole.
-
Control [direct] and manipulation [indirect] are different things.
Also, it's not like due to my inability to specifically control Hydrogen that it will remain immovable in my attempts to control an entire water molecule. There is no reason for it to present any [noteworthy] force in reaction to the presence of mine on the oxygen component.
-
Let me rephrase my statement: Controlling the part /= controlling the whole.
-
Correct. However, controlling part = manipulating the whole.
-
Correct. However, controlling part = manipulating the whole.
I disagree. Controlling part = manipulating solely that part. You're adding on the (side)effects of controlling the parts to what you're really controlling.
-
Which can't be helped. It's physics. Or chemistry. Which is essentially applied physics.
For example, assume I have a weight. This will represent the oxygen molecule that I control. To this weight are two lengths that, for simplicity's sake, are of an immeasurable strength and would require incredible amounts of energy to destroy. And to these are two smaller weights. These represent the hydrogen molecules. And the entire structure is representative of a water molecule.
Now, if I were to move the weight representing the oxygen molecule, wouldn't the entire structure move as well? It would. The same could be applied to anyone who could control Hydrogen, although it would be interesting to see the interaction between someone who could control Oxygen against Hydrogen in this case since it would be a matter between mass [Oxygen] and acceleration [Hydrogen], assuming the force being applied was equal in magnitude.
-
This topic is asking about explicit control - not the extended applications involved in your examples. Why do you need to go so far as to insinuate that you could potentially control all the elements through them all being connected? That defeats the purpose of the thread.
-
This topic is asking about explicit control - not the extended applications involved in your examples. Why do you need to go so far as to insinuate that you could potentially control all the elements through them all being connected? That defeats the purpose of the thread.
By that logic, no one here could control anything. Except for the Noble Gasses. Almost everything else is only obtainable in a compound forme and, thus, cannot be controlled.
Also, one couldn't control everything. Not everything can be bound together chemically, meaning that there are limitations unless you want to make some convoluted compound. And in that instance where there are a conflicts in a compound, it would be a combination of quantity [more molecules = more control] and mass [less mass = less control].
Also, I don't see how it defeats the purpose of the thread. Each element has their own applications and doesn't affect the base question.
-
I'm gonna go with Carbon. It's abundant in pretty much every compound (and usually in multiples, meaning I'd have an easier time dragging bonded things along)
Manipulating the carbon in a persons body would let me attack and even kill if necessary.
I could squeeze coal into diamonds (and more amusingly, diamonds into coal)
Depending on how fine tuned of control we are talking here, I could even create life...
-
This topic is asking about explicit control - not the extended applications involved in your examples. Why do you need to go so far as to insinuate that you could potentially control all the elements through them all being connected? That defeats the purpose of the thread.
By that logic, no one here could control anything. Except for the Noble Gasses. Almost everything else is only obtainable in a compound form and, thus, cannot be controlled.
Only obtainable in compound form? It had to come from somewhere to become a compound in the first place. Therefore, a bit of it on its own that could be controlled.
Also, one couldn't control everything. Not everything can be bound together chemically, meaning that there are limitations unless you want to make some convoluted compound. And in that instance where there are a conflicts in a compound, it would be a combination of quantity [more molecules = more control] and mass [less mass = less control].
Continuing this logic, If it can be connected, (it is indeed within the realm of possibility) it could be controlled then.
-
This topic is asking about explicit control - not the extended applications involved in your examples. Why do you need to go so far as to insinuate that you could potentially control all the elements through them all being connected? That defeats the purpose of the thread.
By that logic, no one here could control anything. Except for the Noble Gasses. Almost everything else is only obtainable in a compound form and, thus, cannot be controlled.
Only obtainable in compound form? It had to come from somewhere to become a compound in the first place. Therefore, a bit of it on its own that could be controlled.
Well, oxygen for example just does not exist as a "pure" element. The oxygen we breathe is actually a compound of 2 oxygen atoms. sure, it "comes from" somewhere, but it isn't stable in that form, and will instantly bond, be it to other oxygen atoms to make oxygen gas, to 2 hydrogen atoms to make water, to another oxygen atom and a carbon atom to make carbon dioxide, etc. if one can only control pure elements, and not compounds (which would include compounds between an element and itself) then one is SEVERELY limited in what one can control. the only useful element to choose would be helium.
BTW, how are we handling isotopes and ions? Because one of the hydrogen ions is just a proton, which would mean hydrogen control gives you control over all protons, essentially all matter.
-
Okay, I shall ask this. Where will you find pure Oxygen? Pure Iron? Pure Sodium?
Correct me wrong, but outside of solutions, in which they are immersed in a solvent and the status of it will remain to be argued later, finding an element in a pure state naturally, since I'm assuming everyone isn't lugging around pure samples of their element, is near impossible. I leave the room for error regarding the elements in which a pure, stable state can be found, a minuscule chance regarding everything else.
And even within the realm of possibility, there's not much you can do. In a state like that where you do create the convoluted compound to manipulate another element, it would not necessarily be stable and would not have the same qualities if those elements were not bonded. I am still following the assumption that you can not 'harvest' your element from samples to gather a pure state due to laws regarding the conservation of energy and the instability that would possible occur from doing so.
In any case, Oxygen is still my choice and still an optimal candidate for manipulation. Given that I have access to pure Oxygen, I guess I'll just up the acidity of people's saliva, blood, etc. and watch their own body destroy them like that. I'd be able to deteriorate almost everything else as well.
As for isotopes and ions, for me, it depends on if it were naturally occurring. And outside of a solution. But all in all, I think it would be limited to, outside of compounds, to its most stable state as a pure element.
-
This topic is asking about explicit control - not the extended applications involved in your examples. Why do you need to go so far as to insinuate that you could potentially control all the elements through them all being connected? That defeats the purpose of the thread.
By that logic, no one here could control anything. Except for the Noble Gasses. Almost everything else is only obtainable in a compound form and, thus, cannot be controlled.
Only obtainable in compound form? It had to come from somewhere to become a compound in the first place. Therefore, a bit of it on its own that could be controlled.
Well, oxygen for example just does not exist as a "pure" element. The oxygen we breathe is actually a compound of 2 oxygen atoms. sure, it "comes from" somewhere, but it isn't stable in that form, and will instantly bond, be it to other oxygen atoms to make oxygen gas, to 2 hydrogen atoms to make water, to another oxygen atom and a carbon atom to make carbon dioxide, etc.
And why can you not control it in that instant it is by itself?
-
And why can you not control it in that instant it is by itself?
Because chemistry says it's not that simple. In a perfect situation, it would be simply O2, but amidst that, all sorts of other elements get thrown into the mix.
-
And why can you not control it in that instant it is by itself?
Because chemistry says it's not that simple. In a perfect situation, it would be simply O2, but amidst that, all sorts of other elements get thrown into the mix.
But if (as this thread says) you can control one element, then you should be able to.
Or, to give your chemistry a 'perfect' situation, here: A near-complete vacuum space, filled only with 1 Oxygen. Nothing to bond to, nothing to screw it up.
-
But if (as this thread says) you can control one element, then you should be able to.
Or, to give your chemistry a 'perfect' situation, here: A near-complete vacuum space, filled only with 1 Oxygen. Nothing to bond to, nothing to screw it up.
Again, control v manipulation.
Because those are the condition in which the OP implies we would have to work under /sarc. In this case, death from lack of oxygen or death from inability to process the oxygen.
-
But if (as this thread says) you can control one element, then you should be able to.
Or, to give your chemistry a 'perfect' situation, here: A near-complete vacuum space, filled only with 1 Oxygen. Nothing to bond to, nothing to screw it up.
In this case, death from lack of oxygen or death from inability to process the oxygen.
Why do you have to be in the vacuum to control it?
-
You don't. Technically, if you were in a vacuum, there'd be nothing to control. But I digress. The issue came from the purity of the compounds, which you have expressed problems with, arguing that it would lead to unintended manipulation of other other elements.
-
You don't.
Then why bring up this?
In this case, death from lack of oxygen or death from inability to process the oxygen.
-
Because you've presented a scenario where you were placed in a situation that would otherwise be a vacuum it if weren't for the person and the lone oxygen molecule.
-
You can purify your substance from impurity FYI. It's as easy as moving atoms of element towards a purer location. Thus, impurity doesn't really matter.
What matters is that elements and compounds have vastly different properties. For example, your usual table salt, NaCl. Na is highly reactive and Cl is highly poisonous (even then it's Cl2 which is poisonous), but NaCl is neither reactive nor poisonous. Thus the question is: do you control only the element (no compound form) or also compound form (which would very likely overlap each other, thus making this kind of ability less diverse)?
-
However, the question is do we have the capability to break chemical bonds? Depending on that, it's not as easy to just strip your element from a subject. Especially when considering the effects of doing so.
-
actually, the main idea was like this: you have an ability to control ONE element. Yes, you can control chemical compounds that have same element such as O2. However, you can't control chemical compounds that have 2 different elements such as NaCl (either you control Na or Cl, just one). Plus, you can co-op with the other element controller (e.g. X is a sodium controller, Y is a chlorine controller, then, together, X and Y can make NaCl). Also, let's say we can break any kind of chemical bonds (since that'll need energy, maybe you can use your own stamina).
N.B.: this allows you to have mountains of gold...
-
actually, the main idea was like this: you have an ability to control ONE element. Yes, you can control chemical compounds that have same element such as O2. However, you can't control chemical compounds that have 2 different elements such as NaCl (either you control Na or Cl, just one). Plus, you can co-op with the other element controller (e.g. X is a sodium controller, Y is a chlorine controller, then, together, X and Y can make NaCl). Also, let's say we can break any kind of chemical bonds (since that'll need energy, maybe you can use your own stamina).
N.B.: this allows you to have mountains of gold...
it also allows you to make huge explosions.
-
actually, the main idea was like this: you have an ability to control ONE element. Yes, you can control chemical compounds that have same element such as O2. However, you can't control chemical compounds that have 2 different elements such as NaCl (either you control Na or Cl, just one). Plus, you can co-op with the other element controller (e.g. X is a sodium controller, Y is a chlorine controller, then, together, X and Y can make NaCl). Also, let's say we can break any kind of chemical bonds (since that'll need energy, maybe you can use your own stamina).
N.B.: this allows you to have mountains of gold...
it also allows you to make huge explosions.
Sure. We'll have that hellish war...
-
Sweet, turn all the human bodies into hydrogen bombs.
-
Sweet, turn all the human bodies into hydrogen bombs.
oh man, that's a sweet evil master plan... It can make me diabetes. But wait, if it's a war, it's an insta-win! Not so cool~
-
Uranium for the win! It's so evil, I love it!
-
Good luck getting your hands on some Uranium.
-
Element of choice: Hydrogen
Why?
By controlling Hydrogen I can control when it will bond and what it will bond to. A little synthetic chemistry will tell you that controlling when Hydrogen Protonates or Depronates a molecule and/or when Hydrogen changes the nearby pH will grant control over altering that molecule.
But it doesn't stop there.
Elements differ based on the number of Protons. H+ is a Proton. Control over Hydrogen allows me to create isotopes of any element I want.
So with control over Hydrogen I have the ability to synthesis anything I could desire and slowly transport it.
Note: All of this merely assumed telekinetic control of Hydrogen Atoms. No control of other elements needed and yet I still can control compounds using the power of Hydrogen.
-
Hydrogen OP
-
Hydrogen OP
And that was without mentioning control of the Hydrogen Isotopes.
Control of Hydrogen: Another way of saying control of Electrons, Protons and Neutrons
No control of quarks though.
-
After all of that, I must say....
I still prefer Fe.
-
Now I should be aware of hydrogen controllers.
-
Now I should be aware of hydrogen controllers.
Or anyone who controls a non-metal.
-
Oxygen for the win.
-
This made me think of this thread...
http://imgur.com/gallery/kmxeF
-
This made me think of this thread...
http://imgur.com/gallery/kmxeF
Oh goody, goody! Will jam people with mercury!
-
Antihydrogen.
-
Antihydrogen.
Why?
Also what are the uses of Antihydrogen? (I don't see it being useful in synthesis because we can't use antiwater)
-
Annihilation, of course. If I can produce at will the element I've chosen, I'll have the most powerful energy source and explosive in existence. Hmm, maybe I should go with antideuterium instead, so that I have protons, neutrons, and electrons all covered. But then again, I can always make neutrons by forcing the electron and proton inside a hydrogen atom to undergo reverse beta decay, if my control extends that far.
If we cannot create the element we control, and can only control already existing atoms of the element, then the obvious choice would be carbon or hydrogen or some other common element. And that's boring.
-
So no uses beyond annihilation? Aw :(
I will stick with H since I can construct or deconstruct what I want.
-
Wondering if we're allowed to control some forms of exotic matter. Like, replacing the up and down quarks in our atoms with some other types of quarks, and replacing the electrons with some other types of leptons. That'd give them radically different, and possibly very interesting, properties. Normally exotic matter like those are highly unstable, but we shouldn't be able to stabilize them with our element-controlling magic or whatever.
-
@Bloodshadow: Why not antiiron? Iron has the strongest binding energy. This idnicates that if iron and antiiron collide there will be much more energy released per unit mass rather than the puny antiproton. Furthermore, Iron is very abundant and it is the cause for stars to cease.
-
Assuming that I can produce an unlimited amount of my chosen element, it doesn't really make any difference what element I choose if I just want annihilation. Or does it...
Whatever. This whole thing is rather ambiguously defined. Analyzing it too deeply will probably make it fall apart and ruin the whole point.
-
Most definitely Lithium. Why? Because I'd be able to create awesome bombs just by using water. eue I really like exploding things.
I'd say this would be the best Alkali Metal choice for the best bomb since it has the smallest atomic radius among the others, which would require a larger amount of energy to oxidize it to its Li+ form. Sure, it'd take a little longer than if I chose to use Francium for example, since its atomic radius is the largest of the entire periodic table and its electron are much more "movable" if you know what I'm saying. But the boom would be totally worth it EuE
I'd love to have some booms here and there eue
maybe I'm a little psycho. teeny bit.
-
Definitely hydrogen; it's the most common element in the universe and is a big part of virtually every organic compound.
I concur. Absolutely the best choice. Plus think about water... or hydrogen bombs.