• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

  • Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

Mercury Pyroantimonate

C

clubcard

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
1,483
I have often wondered if the huge 'Red Mercury' myth had a grain of truth and the one bit of it I cannot discard is the named compound mercury pyroantimonate. AFAIK only elements with a valency of I will form pyroantimonate presumably because if, rather than 2 atoms, a single Hg was used, it would be an ionic compound with a deal of ring-strain. So I don't think a single Sb2O7 2- can work i.e. HgSb2O7 doesn't exist. I think only 2 minor Russian papers claim it exists. I DO wonder if Hg2Sb4O14 can exist. Not my field.

I don't know if neutrons, protons or helium 4 nuclei can cause chemical changes. Hg is rather heavy.

But to start with an ionic compound whose existence is questionable is interesting. If it were two Hg 1+ and somehow a Hg 1+ was lost while the other Hg 1+ becomes Hg 2+, would that provide sufficient 'thrust' to overcome the issue of bond-angles?

Probably I am just being very silly and I feel quite sure that it isn't the ballotechnic required to produce a fusion-only weapon.

But sometimes it's fun just to play with these 'what if' scenarios.
 
W: Because of the great secrecy surrounding the development and manufacture of nuclear weapons, there is no proof that red mercury exists. However, all samples of alleged "red mercury" analyzed in the public literature have proven to be well-known, common red substances of no interest to weapons makers. Red mercury is therefore considered a hoax, perpetrated by con artists who sought to take advantage of gullible buyers on the black market for arms.

If anything I would expect the compound to be a neutron poison (Hg/Sb both heavy atoms) and possibly an oxidising agent. I don't see any obvious benefits or uses w.r.t. your standard issue nuclear weaponry reactions (U235/238, Pu, LiD etc). Neither mercury nor antimony are of any obvious radiological interest as far as I can see.

If it were two Hg 1+ and somehow a Hg 1+ was lost while the other Hg 1+ becomes Hg 2+, would that provide sufficient 'thrust' to overcome the issue of bond-angles?
Click to expand...

no, disproportionation of Hg is not that energetic at all

If you want a better problem to solve go deduce the identity & process to manufacture "FOGBANK", thought to be an aerogel used as an interstage plasma generation mechanism in thermonuclear bombs.
 
What interests me is that nobody has drawn a structure of this putative compound. I'm wondering if it's an ionic macromolecule (if that is the term I mean) i.e. it's one HUGE molecule. If each unit is composed of Hg, 2SB & 7O, could it break down into other less dense compounds? There are people who claim ballotechnics are impossible but I do wonder if Russia was looking for one in mercury pyroantimonate? Sb2O5 + Hg, for example.

The definition of a high explosive is an explosive whose detonation velocity is higher than the speed of sound in that material but that's one molecule releasing enough energy so that adjacent molecules will detonate. BUT if your entire mass is composed of a single molecule, how fast will the reaction proceed? I might add that ballotechnics are not explosives, they release most of their energy in the form of work (heat).

So the theory is that such a material can produce the temperatures and pressures required to produce fusion. I'm presuming D & T are fused to produce He, a free neutron and 17.6 MeV. So, of course, the idea was that it would be possible to produce a pure fusion weapon which would be very clean. Most designs actually use depleted uranium as their tamper so they are fission-fusion-fission weapons BUT lead can substitute. In fact, the lead and antimony might do the job.

It could simply be disinformation. Possibly they DID try and failed, but wrote it up as a success (or partial success) and leak the information. Let's face it, it would be a terrible thing if it were true. Only nation-states have the resources to produce nuclear weapons, but this would be a much, much simpler undertaking.

But I think their has to be a grain of truth. It's such an unusual seeming compound. If you have a compound that can produce temperatures of 100 million degrees then you would have a conventional weapon (or at least a new class and not one that is especially controlled).

It's a pity Ted Taylor is no longer with us (the designer or the smallest, largest and most efficient nuclear weapons (not thermonuclear). He apparently had a design for a nuclear weapon that would fit into a 105mm shell. That suggests that 'suitcase nukes' very likely do exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top