Basic points paraphrased from the article:

There are two speakers facing each other which are both producing the same tone. They are adjusted so that the waves interfere perfectly with each other, creating what's called a "standing wave". At the places where both waves have zero volume, called "nodes", the pressure coming up from the one wave and pressure coming down from the other is exactly equal, and they are strong enough to counteract gravity, so very light things can be suspended in mid air.

In this video, the guy adjusts the wave-o-metre thingie up and down, and it moves the nodes up and down, and the droplets move up and down as well.

The problem with the standing wave amplification theory is that it would require the kernel to be at a point where the waves are interfering constructively... and they seem to be all scattered about randomly. With interfering waves you create points where the waves interfere constructively (add to eachother) but you will also end up with points where they are interfering destructively (canceling each other out) so even though the energy at a specific point may be amplified the energy at an adjacent node will be diminished (relative to one phone).


You have the same problem in a microwave ( ever end up with cold spots in your burrito? ).

In short, the net energy of the system is not increased by wave interference (luckily, otherwise it would violate known physical laws )... so we're still dealing with 8W of undirected microwave energy in the system. Considering that the energy diminishes at a rate of 1/(4pi r^2) for a unidirectional antennae... you're probably looking at less than 1000th of that energy being transferred to the kernel. Considering that most cellphones have a dipole antenna which is nowhere near unidirectional (think about how you hold a cellphone when you use it, and where you want the signal energy to go... it's generally not straight up or straight down) I'd be confident saying they're effectively receiving no energy.

I call BS