First, the basic description supplied by Sam Cohen is of a substance that violates basic physics. The biggest issue is that this substance apparently can undergo some sort of chemical reaction that releases an intense amount of heat, but that reaction does NOT increase its entropy. Mother Nature doesn't let you DO that--because otherwise, Red Mercury would be the fuel for a perpetual motion machine. If it IS such a fuel, then it's too damn valuable to blow up in neutron bombs.
Next, when you look at the details of "red mercury," it gets interesting. Supposedly, it's mercury antimony oxide. It generates energy levels associated with nuclear reactions from a simple chemical reaction--and nobody ever bothers to explain HOW it does this. This is kind of important, because chemical reactions are FAR less energetic than nuclear reactions. To give you an idea of how much more energy is involved in a nuclear reaction, take a laboratory beaker full of sugar and pour in some hydrochloric acid. You will end up with a black, gunky mess (essentially pure carbon) and enough heat that you can't hold the beaker without using tongs or thermally insulated gloves. Now, if you were to somehow fuse a significant fraction of the hydrogen in the sugar into helium in one instant, the following would happen:
Finally, this stuff is AMAZINGLY cheap--no more than $400,000 a kilo, and it will set off a thermonuclear burn with just a blasting cap. No need for complicated design work, just stick in your tritium and your lithium deuteride, and BINGO! You just became a superpower. What's that, ma'am? You don't have tritium, and you don't have any lithium deuteride? NO PROBLEM! This stuff gets so doggone hot, you don't NEED the usual fusion fuel materials. Set off enough of it and it will ignite oxygen and nitrogen--good ol' air, or at least a significant minority component of the air in the Los Angeles Basin--into a fusion reaction of amazing yield. Nukes would be VERY cheap...and every terrorist in the world would be able to afford this stuff, and keep it on the shelf next to their $400 EMP bomb they built with parts from Radio Schlock and plans downloaded from the Internet.
It would be cheap at $1,000,000 a kilo.
It would still be very competitive with "ordinary" nukes at $10,000,000 a kilo.
If it actually existed.
But, HEY...if I had a line on where to get red mercury, I sure wouldn't use it in a bomb...I'd use it to fuel a powerplant in California, and not have to pay for fuel, EVER.
Yes, and you've written some wonderful information that will help me do a productive search. Thank you. I'm not proficient in physics nor do I care to learn it at this point in my life. But with the information you gave me, I can continue gathering facts and then let others decide.
Even with my limited knowledge of physics, everything you said makes perfect sense to me. Can you tell me why Sam Cohen thinks otherwise? If what you said is so obvious, as you seem to think, then why doesn't Mr. Cohen -- the creator of the neutron bomb -- understand basic physics? Why do he and other esteemed physicists believe there are "pure fusion" weapons small enough to fit in a lunch box and lethal enough to kill everyone within 500 or 600 yards?
Fox News is reporting that the NYPD will be using radiation sensors at the New Year's Day celebrations. Someone must be taking all this seriously, as I doubt NYPD would include this in their budget if they thought it was hogwash.
Anyway, back to Cohen...