Talk:Red mercury
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Comment 1
Appears to be quoted from an on-line survivalism book[1].:
- Western law enforcement officials claim they have confiscated substances passed off as red mercury which were nothing more than common mercury mixed with brick dust. In July 1994, FBI Director Louis Freeh said, regarding illegal black market sales of illicit nuclear materials: "Most were frauds where swindlers tried to sell harmless red mercury as more highly enriched radioactive material."
I can only find this quote at nine different sites via Google, so I'm sort of doubting the authenticity of it.
- In 1993, Russian General Y. Negin claimed his country had developed a low-yield nuclear weapon "in which a doubling of yield is achieved with a hundredfold reduction of weight compared to existing weapons."
I can't find any supporting material for this on Google:
- In 1968, E.I. duPont de Nemours produced a powdered red mercury compound. When it was irradiated and pressured into a gel, the density substantially increased.
[edit] Comment 2
This article implies by its wording that red mercury exists, whereas the few references to it seem either to question its actual existence, or to talk about it in tones that imply a "fact-lite" agenda behind them. The latter type, in my unscientific but highly skeptical opinion, have the feel of articles promoting the "reality" of cold fusion and of diatribes accusing governments of mass conspiracies. While time and further research may prove them to be accurate, they don't stand well as fact, and this is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill.
Wouldn't it be better to start this article with the statement that red mercury is a general term used to identify a theoretical substance that can induce fusion explosions without requiring the usual fission starter explosion? One could then go on to list the specific theories; e.g., that it is a hoax, a codename for improved fission materials, a Soviet discovery that governments are keeping under wraps, etc. It might also be good to provide links organized by which theories they promote. Just my two cents. -- Jeff Q 10:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Andy Landells: I don't know whether Red Mercury exists, but I'm pretty sure time travel doesn't! I've removed the claim that the defendants in the recent UK red mercury case were found not guilty on the 27th July.
- If you actually read the version of the article that was current when you edited it rather than your cached version you'd have seen that I corrected my typo (27th July) to the correct date (25th July; today) within a couple of minutes of making the error, together with an edit summary apologising for the typo. Tonywalton | Talk 11:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment 3
Deleting a sentence to Talk.
I don't think it makes sense to say
It was produced in the Soviet Union, then sold to countries and/or terrorists after the Soviet Union collapsed.
Given that there is no actual evidence such a substance exists, I doubt we can discuss its specific origins, when it crossed national borders, and to whom it was sold.
[edit] Comment 4
Would irradiating mecury of any form magically turn it into some sort of super-explosive? That particular theory sounds like bad sci-fi to me, not chemistry. Just my 2 cents. Also, wouldn't one be able to calculate how much pressure this stuff would need to put out in order to create nuclear fusion? It seems highly implausible, but I'm not a chemist or a physicist... --Fastfission 06:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It could produce a high-spin, long half-life metastable nuclear isomer, suitable for induced gamma emission (see the relevant articles on induced gamma emission and nuclear isomers). Under the right conditions, this could be triggered to release large amounts of energy as gamma rays and start a fission or fusion reaction (by photon-induced fission, or by some secondary process); let us just say that I know someone working for the government on induced gamma emission. A casual search turns up the following list: http://ie.lbl.gov/toi/listnuc.asp?sql=&sortBy=ZA&Z=80 of isotopes for mercury, any denoted with an m are excited metastable states capable of producing gamma rays, and due to short half-lives, would be hard to come by. Red mercury could contain a particular isotope or (this would be extremely valuable) pre-excited nuclear isomer with a longish half-life. Just my 2 cents, as someone who works with nuclear physics.
-- 70.144.180.134 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
RE: 1968, DuPont
Reference can be found in Chemical Abstract Service citation:
New ternary oxides of mercury with the pyrochlore structure. Sleight, A.W. (E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington, Del.) Inorg. Chem. 1968, 7(9), 1704-8 (Eng).
In general
Highly technical page by a chemist who has researched and attempted to recreate the compound in question or related compounds: http://www.geocities.com/smshires.geo/
Tabor 00:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh my gosh if you cant find it on google it must not be true!
[edit] Another evidence
There was a film on Russian TV that was created specially to disclose the mystery of Red Mercury. Many people gave interview and showed the pieces of the substance. Nearly all physicists and military specialists said it was developed for anti-radar stealth-like technology. Only some UFOlogists did put forward other fantastic versions.--Nixer 05:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vimana craft
This substance has a resemblance to "mercury" used to power/guide alleged spacecraft of ancient India,the mythological Vimana. http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_7.htm#Ancient%20Indian
[edit] And I've heard...
...that red mercury is ordinary mercury into which other substances (precious metals, rare earths) were mixed so that they could easily be smuggled out of Russia as if they are mercury and later extracted and sold. Such a mercury wouldn't have red colour, it is called red because of association with Russia. I think I read about it in Govorukhin's "Great Criminal Revolution". Nikola 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Transportation
How is it transported —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.24.99.62 (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
