Comments on: High Energy Density… Alkali Metals

By: Paul Studier

Paul Studier — Fri, 02 May 2008 21:17:03 +0000

I should have guessed. I thought it was strange how casual they were about eye protection, actually putting it on only after he was actually holding the vial over the water. I also wondered about the dissolving glass. However, fraud did not occur to me.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:59:46 +0000

What makes me so angry is I had seen that clip before and I had taken it as the truth and it actually had made me think and do some research into it. When I saw it I thought “Wow. I knew it would be a lot of energy but I never knew it was that much.” That got me thinking “I wonder if this could be used for something. Maybe it could be slowly injected into a combustion chamber and used as a super high energy density rocket fuel for space probes” or “Maybe it could be used in some situation where very small explosives are needed.”

It got me to read up on cesium and rubidium and in reading I looked up the energy density and thought “geez! It seems like that’s too small to make that kind of explosion.” Now it makes sense to me. I had been duped!

By: Yojimbo

Yojimbo — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:54:11 +0000

It is a fun show, but (fortunately or otherwise) my introduction to it was through a blog entry that blew the whistle on the fakery. The show’s producers admitted that the real reactions just were not interesting enough so they faked what they thought it “ought to be”.

As for real reactions, if you have not seen the “Sodium Party” clips on Theodore Grey’s site, you really must! Not fake explosions, but some real spectacular stuff. In fact, check out his whole Periodic Table site – way cool!

http://theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Stories/011.2/index.html (sorry – I am HTML tag illiterate)

By: Trumbles

Trumbles — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:38:58 +0000

I accepted it too. Looking back though it makes sense that it would have to be a fake because rubidium or cesium would produce h2 gas faster but not more of it and so I don’t see how it could explode. Geez.

I figured it was true basically for one thing the context of the show is so deceptive and it is made to look very real ‘you probably have not seen rubidium or cesium with water – well here is what happens.’ I feel as much angry as made a fool of. Sure, it’s television and not a scholarly publication but still, it was very deceptive and framed in a way to exploit the trust you might give it as being authentic.

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:37:40 +0000

You feel gullible? I’ve seen this video before and never stopped to question it. My face is burning….

By: Rob F

Rob F — Thu, 01 May 2008 05:52:21 +0000

I believed it the first time round – ironically I tend to believe some things on TV more because of the strength of the internet; surely they wouldn’t try to pull off a con job when there are so many people watching and blogging, etc? Right?!?

I mean, I know that the MSM lies about politics all the time but surely they wouldn’t try to pull the same kind of stunt with a scientific experiment that was easily verifiable and repeatable. Surely? Anyways, I can only speak for myself, but my immediate reaction was to believe it.

I don’t watch Top Gear but I’ve held some respect for “The Hamster” until now. If he was in on it then any respect I once had for him has gone right out of the window.

By: Q

Thu, 01 May 2008 04:12:16 +0000

I totally bought it to. That’s shamefully deceptive from what is supposed to be a science show the way it is presented.

By: Chem Geek Gregor

Chem Geek Gregor — Thu, 01 May 2008 03:46:01 +0000

Yeah, it’s presented in a way that makes it seem like it wold have to be true. I mean, why not use real cesium. By the way, you’re welcome. I’m just saying this on behalf of whoever might have emailed you about this.

Cesium does have greater reactivity but the fact that it is more reactive and forms cesium hydroxide from moisture all but rules it out from being much use in batteries for non-specialized purposes. It’s nearly impossible to safely handle in a consumer product and the energy you’d get back would not make worth the effort.

It’s not used in bombs because it doesn’t actually make that big an explosion and would be very expensive.

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Thu, 01 May 2008 03:29:38 +0000

Dave G said:

If cesium is so violently reactive could it be used for a bomb more powerful than regular high explosives? Also, is there any way that that energy could be used in a battery?

Yes, and in fact there are specialized alkaline batteries that are designed to work in subzero climates, but the effort in handling it doesn’t make it a good candidate for general use.

By: Dave G

Dave G — Thu, 01 May 2008 03:19:08 +0000

Wow. That’s an amazingly powerful reaction for such a tiny amount. Actually that leaves me with a couple of questions: If cesium is so violently reactive could it be used for a bomb more powerful than regular high explosives? Also, is there any way that that energy could be used in a battery? I know they have lithium and now sodium batteries because it has such a positive ion potential but if it gets higher when you go down the group, why not cesium? What about a cesium reaction with fluorine? That seems like it would be even more.

Note: I only took two chemistry classes so I’m not an expert.