red mercury

[sm...@ukc.ac.uk]

In view of J. Acharjee's contribution to this debate in his
article 'Red for Danger'(Fortean Times no.127) I propose that this
debate should move onto specifics. If the source compound, mercuric
pyro-antimonate, does not exist then neither can its amalgam or, for
that matter, that amalgam containing some 4% by mass of an actinide.
With this in mind refer to the Chemical Abstracts Service's Number
Section for 1965-1971:-

20720-76-7 Antimonic acid (H4Sb2O7), mercury(2+)salt(1:2)
H4O7Sb2.2Hg

The CAS Subject Index for 1967-1971 has (page 2785s):-

mercury(2+) salt (1:2)[20720-76-7], crystal structure of, 69: 71239v

whilst the Chemical Abstracts themselves include an entry in volume 69,
for 1968, on page 6661 beginning:-
71239v 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). Three new
ternary oxides of Hg- Hg2Nb2O7, Hg2Ta2O7 and Hg2S2O7 (sic) - have been
prepd. and characterized.......

An enquiry sent to CAS drew a response stating that:-

'....."Hg2S2O7" apeared as a typographical error for "Hg2SbO7"(!)'

However, anyone bothering to refer to the report in question (in the
Journal of Inorganic Chemistry) would see that it does indeed deal with
the disputed compound. Pronouncements on the subject of Red Mercury
which ignore this background data are, so to speak, made into a void,
since they ignore the only generally acknowledged evidence (to my
knowledge) and should now be regarded as lacking any authority.

Steve Shires.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.