[Mr Rayon]

http://www.nzherald....jectid=10668231

[rewtedesco]

Not knowing for sure if the source is reliable:
Is it a hoax? is it half true? Or is there someone who speculates in commodities and likes to raise the prize? Or all of the above?

[CharonY]

Well, the price has been rising constantly for years. Delivery is slow, especially outside the US and about everyone is talking about a shortage.

[rigney]

Thank goodness Hydrogen is far more prevelent in earths confines than Helium. Otherwise the world as we know it might only last another two or three hundred years at best. "Capricious" is the only word to describe how wasteful we are in protecting our resources. While we don't need Helium to support life as such, it is a necessity in some modern day mechanichms, helping us to do so. Helium, is becoming rare. How rare? Only time, conservation and "greed" will tell.

This post has been edited by rigney: 2 September 2010 - 07:25 PM

[dragonstar57]

rigney, on 2 September 2010 - 07:12 PM, said:

Thank goodness Hydrogen is far more prevelent in earths confines than Helium. Otherwise the world as we know it might only last another two or three hundred years at best. "Capricious" is the only word to describe how wasteful we are in protecting our resources. While we don't need Helium to support life as such, it is a necessity in some modern day mechanichms, helping us to do so. Helium, is becoming rare. How rare? Only time, conservation and "greed" will tell.

and its still wasted in balloons?

[Mr Skeptic]

cipher510, on 9 October 2010 - 07:29 PM, said:

and its still wasted in balloons?

Of course. Heavens forbid we use something flammable when we can use an important resource we will run out of shortly instead.

[lemur]

How will I disguise my voice now when I call in fake pizza delivery orders?

[Mr Skeptic]

Hydrogen is twice as light as helium, so would make better balloons and better chipmunk voices. But it is also flammable and in the right combination with oxygen or air can be explosive. Which just adds to the fun in my opinion, though I'm sure someone would somehow manage to burn their house down with it.

[Genecks]

Hmm. Maybe it's time to buy a tank of helium. Maybe my descendants 300 years from now will find helium to be a gold mine.

I find that if something can go back into the atmosphere where people can readily attempt to collect it, then it's not too much of a problem to lose it. Technology (hopefully) would advance to the point where we can recollect gaseous materials. However, if such a technology could not occur, then surely loss of helium would be a serious issue.

Then again, considering the economic costs to develop such technology and allow people to use it? Well, maybe a tank of helium 300 years from now would be worth about what $1500 USD is now these days. I can imagine (not theoretically, though) someone building a catalytic system to recollect helium. If such a systeme could be developed, then surely helium loss would not be such a great issue.

This post has been edited by Genecks: 10 October 2010 - 07:13 AM

[dragonstar57]

Genecks, on 10 October 2010 - 07:09 AM, said:

Hmm. Maybe it's time to buy a tank of helium. Maybe my descendants 300 years from now will find helium to be a gold mine.

I find that if something can go back into the atmosphere where people can readily attempt to collect it, then it's not too much of a problem to lose it. Technology (hopefully) would advance to the point where we can recollect gaseous materials. However, if such a technology could not occur, then surely loss of helium would be a serious issue.

Then again, considering the economic costs to develop such technology and allow people to use it? Well, maybe a tank of helium 300 years from now would be worth about what $1500 USD is now these days. I can imagine (not theoretically, though) someone building a catalytic system to recollect helium. If such a systeme could be developed, then surely helium loss would not be such a great issue.

I'm going to invest in helium
i'll have like 5k tanks in my basement.

Mr Skeptic, on 10 October 2010 - 02:32 AM, said:

Hydrogen is twice as light as helium, so would make better balloons and better chipmunk voices. But it is also flammable and in the right combination with oxygen or air can be explosive. Which just adds to the fun in my opinion, though I'm sure someone would somehow manage to burn their house down with it.

anything else light enough to work?
and why can't Hydrogen be used in the technological needs for helium?

This post has been edited by cipher510: 10 October 2010 - 03:53 PM

[TonyMcC]

I believe quite a lot of people are forecasting a great future for airships. For example unmanned military communications etc. Also slow,but cheap transport of heavy loads. I believe you can go sightseeing in an airship around Lucerne, Switzerland at the present time. Whether these aims are a waste of a valuable limited resource I suppose must be debatable.

[lemur]

Genecks, on 10 October 2010 - 07:09 AM, said:

Then again, considering the economic costs to develop such technology and allow people to use it? Well, maybe a tank of helium 300 years from now would be worth about what $1500 USD is now these days. I can imagine (not theoretically, though) someone building a catalytic system to recollect helium. If such a systeme could be developed, then surely helium loss would not be such a great issue.

Once hydrogen fusion is online as a source of power, it would generate helium, I think. I don't know how much helium, though. Now I've been reading that there are different methods of fusion that vary in energy output per unit fuel. I don't get how that's possible since I would think converting hydrogen to helium would always release a fixed amount of energy.

[Mr Skeptic]

Genecks, on 10 October 2010 - 07:09 AM, said:

I can imagine (not theoretically, though) someone building a catalytic system to recollect helium.

I can't imagine a catalytic way to get helium. But maybe if we get the other stuff... There's oxygen concentrators that remove some of the nitrogen, and I imagine we could get a similar thing that removes the oxygen, and then what is left could be collected by compression/distillation, since they would all be fairly valuable gases.

On a related note, I wonder if the atmospheric concentration changes as you go higher. I'd imagine there'd be more helium at higher elevations, so less down where our machines would be.

cipher510, on 10 October 2010 - 03:44 PM, said:

and why can't Hydrogen be used in the technological needs for helium?

Helium is special not so much for its lightness but because it is a noble gas (which is also the reason that it is used in balloons, as noble gases aren't flammable). Also the helium nucleus is fairly special, both for helium-4 and helium-3. Also helium cannot liquefy at atmospheric pressure even at absolute zero. This makes it necessary for reaching near absolute zero temps by using liquid helium, as with other gases your gas would liquefy and mess up the refrigeration system. Also liquid helium is a superfluid, although I'm not sure what use that is. Probably for playing with quantum effects.

[dragonstar57]

Mr Skeptic, on 10 October 2010 - 09:40 PM, said:

I can't imagine a catalytic way to get helium. But maybe if we get the other stuff... There's oxygen concentrators that remove some of the nitrogen, and I imagine we could get a similar thing that removes the oxygen, and then what is left could be collected by compression/distillation, since they would all be fairly valuable gases.

On a related note, I wonder if the atmospheric concentration changes as you go higher. I'd imagine there'd be more helium at higher elevations, so less down where our machines would be.



Helium is special not so much for its lightness but because it is a noble gas (which is also the reason that it is used in balloons, as noble gases aren't flammable). Also the helium nucleus is fairly special, both for helium-4 and helium-3. Also helium cannot liquefy at atmospheric pressure even at absolute zero. This makes it necessary for reaching near absolute zero temps by using liquid helium, as with other gases your gas would liquefy and mess up the refrigeration system. Also liquid helium is a superfluid, although I'm not sure what use that is. Probably for playing with quantum effects.

so why not neon gas?

[Mr Skeptic]

Neon would do as an inert gas, but not any of the other properties I mentioned.

[mississippichem]

Quote

Helium is special not so much for its lightness but because it is a noble gas (which is also the reason that it is used in balloons, as noble gases aren't flammable). Also the helium nucleus is fairly special, both for helium-4 and helium-3. Also helium cannot liquefy at atmospheric pressure even at absolute zero. This makes it necessary for reaching near absolute zero temps by using liquid helium, as with other gases your gas would liquefy and mess up the refrigeration system. Also liquid helium is a superfluid, although I'm not sure what use that is. Probably for playing with quantum effects.

Helium, having a smaller molecular/atomic radius than , also makes it valuable for detecting micro-leaks. If a hole exists, helium is small enough to fit through...Thought I would throw that in.

This post has been edited by mississippichem: 13 October 2010 - 03:01 AM

[Leader Bee]

lemur, on 10 October 2010 - 02:19 AM, said:

How will I disguise my voice now when I call in fake pizza delivery orders?

You could always use sulphur hexafluoride???

[Ophiolite]

mississippichem, on 13 October 2010 - 02:56 AM, said:

Helium, having a smaller molecular/atomic radius than , also makes it valuable for detecting micro-leaks. If a hole exists, helium is small enough to fit through...Thought I would throw that in.

Which is why those of you planning large tanks of the stuff to pass on to your granchildren are going to have disappointed grandchildren. (OK it won't disperse that fast, but it will get out of even the most solid tank over enough time.)