sciencoking (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

well, I´m sorry, but those clips aren´t mine... But I think they used about fourth a gram, not more...And hey, you´re right, that would really make 0.224 l instead of 2.24, o_OIt would be quite interesting to find out what those cables are supposed to do...

Laogeodritt (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

(Sorry, more character limit problems.)It would be interesting to know how much rubidium and caesium were used in the two reference videos you used, though. Do you happen to have that data availble?

Laogeodritt (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Erm, wouldn't that be 0.224L at 273K, 1atm? Of course, that just makes it seem even less likely. I'm inclined to agree with you now; it seems extremely unlikely....also, I just realized how stupid the last sentence of the first paragraph was. H2 needs O2 to react thus, it couldn't do much underwater. I really was NOT thinking yesterday.As far as the cables go, I'm not familiar with the type of experimental setup, but it seemed like a quick assumption. Is there no other likely possibility?

Laogeodritt (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Really? I don't recall hearing that. ^^; My mistake.

pvtmulholland (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

According to the episode, they also tested both Rubidium and Caesium.

sciencoking (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

ok. But what else can they be?And: no matter how big the surface is, a certain amount of cesium can only produce a certain amount of hydrogen. 2 Mol of cesium (266 grams) will produce exactly 1 Mol of hydrogen (22.4 litres). 2Cs + 2H2O -> 2CsOH + H2.So let´s say they used 2.66 grams, which is about 2.52, like you said, then that amount will produce 2.24 litres of hydrogen. NO HHO! Hydrogen burns with a beautiful nice flame. Quite fast, but never enough to blow a tub apart.

Laogeodritt (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

(Sorry, char lim.)Another point to consider is one brought up earlier, regarding the area of contact with water. It seems logical: more caesium reacts in less time, and the H2(g) can react while in water (+ heat from exothermic reaction), leading to more explosive results than ignition in the air.Also, you can't conclude that the cables were to explosives because they're there and you don't know what they are; that's arguing from ignorance. You'd need more evidence to support that.

Laogeodritt (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Not quite believing you... I only think there is reason to doubt. What you've shown isn't conclusive "proof", although it can sow the seeds of doubt.One question left is: how much rubidium and cesium did the reference videos and Brainiac use? You can't compare the reactions very well if one uses 0.2g and the other 2g, for instance. Furthermore, the caesium reference reaction does show that the container is damaged; although the destructions and explosion shown are a bit of a stretch.

sciencoking (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

finally someone believes me :D

Laogeodritt (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Then again, I also forgot to take into account that the Mythbusters used 500g of potassium, compared to ... well, probably less than 2.52g of caesium here (which is the mass of a piece of caesium the same size as the 2g of rubidium they used, at room temperature).