Home Made Farnsworth Fusor

The Farnsworth Fusor is a fascinating device, a reactor that fuses hydrogen into helium by creating a plasma under a very high voltage. Although it isn’t a practical way to generate energy, it is a fascinating way to see nuclear fusion. An increasing number of home experimenters are starting to build their own fusors, and [Erik] decided he wanted to be among them. He’s put together a great build log of his progress, starting with a propane tank he bought off craigslist. He added a window, a vacuum pump and a 40KV power supply. Once he added some deuterium (electrolyzed from heavy water he bought from United Nuclear) it was ready to go. After a couple of failed runs, he got the characteristic plasma glow that shows that the reactor is working. The central globe is the plasma, while the light on the left side is a beam of electrons freed by the fusion process. So far, [Erik] has not detected the high-energy neutrons that would show that fusion is underway, but he is close.

Needless to say, this is not a casual build. [Erik] is using a 40KV power supply that would kill you in a heartbeat if your body happened to be the easiest pathway to ground, especially as the power supply is generating pulls over 9 amps to create the fusion reaction. [Erik] joins a select group of amateur fusor builders called the Plasma Club. It isn’t the first Farnsworth Fusor that we have covered, but it is one of the most impressive.

65 thoughts on “Home Made Farnsworth Fusor

  1. Wow, that’s the biggest fusor I’ve ever seen. I mean, seriously, when you say propane tank I was thinking of the small gas grill propane tank, not house-sized tank.

  2. Holy shit. 40kV@9A is 360kW… is that the steady state power or just the maximum rating of the power supply?

    (browsing through the original suggests that the 9A are measured at the “in” side, which might mean primary; if my guess is right, and “~10 mA out” means the secondary, we are at 400W (plenty to kill, but not enough to heat the barn :-)

    1. “plenty to kill” depends on the current limiting characteristic. If the PSU has good constant current performance, 10mA are barely hurting. If it is just rated “10mA” but not current limited, then it probably can deliver >=100mA for sufficient time to kill.

  3. >the power supply is generating over 9 amps to create the fusion reaction

    I had to check the page myself after this line just to be sure that, no, this isn’t correct. That’s 9A _in_, not out.

    9A on a 40kV supply would imply something much scarier than what he’s got there.

  4. Thought provoking article, nice to see, with cautions re any replication…

    FWIW, There’s all sorts of pseudo-science hype around the net re claims of backyard/garage type fusion reactors giving more power out than in, Eg A. Rossi who strangely needs a consistent natural gas feed source to (continue to) run his nickel ‘e-cat’ which only provides heat, suffice to say his methodology requirement placed on uni lab tests procedures requires them to only craft facile experiments which fail at so many levels in terms of any definitive outcome re measurement of heat & electrical power fraught with difficulties Eg harmonics/radiant heat etc, the balance of probabilities is Rossi is a naive physics (naughty maybe clever & long term strategised) scam artist.

    It should be noted, fusion occurs naturally as we know in the sun but, even there its at such a very low level of only ~270W/m^3 (via tunneling) despite its massive density much higher than any densest metals ever seen but, heat output is far less than the body’s output from natural chemical metabolism per cubic meter. So anyone claiming power outputs comparable to the human body from back yard fusion is ‘way out on a limb’ and with Rossi at ~3 orders of magnitude still farther out !

    Fusion is also understood to occur naturally in deep water possibly initiated by various types of natural background radiation and (there is some evidence that it) can be forced on a desktop re ultrasonics and water via sonoluminescence – all of which are probabilistically low. In any case neutron measurement is generally rather difficult and can be very expensive, that is, for instruments that can offer any sort of definitive results re commercial decisions or even safety.

    I commend the article & the experimenter for the effort and approach and definitely of interest as it might just be possible the overall increase in awareness re articles like this can generate, could lead to more exploration, though high & potentially dangerous voltage (pun) isnt necessary to initiate fusion or even produce neutrons, it can be easily done nowadays with a small cost effective medium scale (integrated) chip where the fusion rate and neutron generation can be modulated with a comparative low level electrical signal, the Neutristor by Sandia Labs, with all sorts of possibilities eg a scaled up directed beam version such as in a large focused array in conjunction with ‘other methods’ etc Link to article and short video
    http://www.gizmag.com/sandia-neutristor-neutron-generator-chip/23856/

    Cheers & keep up the good work and excellent reporting :-)

    1. > A. Rossi who strangely needs a consistent natural gas feed source
      > to (continue to) run his nickel ‘e-cat’ which only provides heat

      That’s interesting, that’s the first time I’ve heard that, and I’ve occasionally been following his progress.

      I would have thought one of his many critics (or few supporters) would have noticed that.

      1. Thanks for comment dana,
        I hasten to clarify – thats for his shipping container based system (only, as far as I know) not for the open air factory/lab tests of his AC electrically driven nickel catalyser which dismally fails basic Physics re calorimetry re experimental methodology.
        ie. There is a single or 3 phase AC input which has power measured but misses to state if there is any harmonic distortion and the banal facile assessment of the heat output in the open air regarding radiant heat vs convective cooling – this is technically wrong at so many levels it should be embarrassing to those who designed it !
        The other problem is the ‘scope of work’ regarding the claimed ‘independent’ tests by universities. The crux of that problem is Rossi & associates are central re defining the scope & breadth of the tests but, the uni lab techs employed make no mention of any sort of restrictions in their mandate but, its plain from the range of measurements actually done, the language used and most importantly what is *not* stated and where key data is *not* stated in relation to where it *should* be stated in reference to the ‘scope of work’ experimental outline that make it a huge Fail :-(
        Suffice to say, there are ways and means to sway/craft any set of technical tests even with expected university oversight to gain the sort of output reports you want (and choose the best of a dozen or more, most *not* published) with the type of vague language that is enough to appeal to greedy uneducated investors but, just vague enough so the truly independent technical observers hand wave it off as amateurism as there are nil tech papers at scholar research level – the sad fact those two parties don’t/can’t connect or share notes appears to be where Rossi sits exploits that and its evident he goes to some trouble to stay in that specific gap minimising high end attention whilst canvassing for the (technically) uneducated financiers driven by clear $ motives only who appear to also be rather pliable to Rossi’s technique (Goebels would be proud) and outright (emotionally designed) propaganda… Don’t get me started on Blacklight Power though, now there is a story at yet another left of ‘craft’ ;-)

        1. Ummm, I’m not trying to defend Rossi here, I’m just watching from the sidelines, but I never came across any reference to his e-cat using natural gas, ether his lab test units or his shipping container based unit.

          A quick google search for ‘rossi e-cat natural gas’ only turns up a mention of his goal of driving the e-cat with natural gas, that he never succeeded with that goal and a more recent mention that he feels that goal is no longer necessary.

          I mean, by all accounts Rossi has a 1 megawatt shipping container test unit installed and working somewhere in a client facility. If I were the client and Rossi said “oh, by the way, the unit needs a natural gas feed and ‘n’ cubic liters of natural gas a day”, (where the combustion heat output of ‘n’ cubic liters of natural gas per day equals the rated heat output of the unit) I assume that would set off alarm bells in the mind of any potential client.

          I’m all for any valid criticism of Rossi’s work or cold fusion in general, but it bothers me when critics need to invent criticism. Especially when, if it truly is snake oil, there should be so many valid criticisms to go around.

          1. dana, on reflection might not be appropriate forum here to discuss Rossi but, will address your points now (admins can always jump in), in relation please see my very last post earlier. Re your sentences in numbered sequence:-

            1. Its his”e-cat” commercial implementation that required a gas supply ostensibly to start the reaction off as power is necessary but, the gas fuel rate is undisclosed ostensibly as client is under a NDA but as I stated, Rossi’s “e-cat” lab tests show electrical source only which could be AC or DC in that case all you need is an appropriate battery in any self contained commercial unit.
            NB. It makes far less thermodynamic sense to plumb in a fixed gas supply with much less efficiency for generating electricity for the high power density level to start his “e-cat” functioning than to rely on natural gas with more conversion infrastructure for the same purpose.

            2. Last time I looked mid last year, its possible references to a gas supply (as primary need) have been removed or were there for other purposes not disclosed. Don’t expect any search engine to be completely reliable or specific re your search string, wider search criteria & links to investigative sites can help too, the net is generally growing at a faster rate than google & others can index reliably. Various archives are also available of his initial ‘specification’ eg archive.org

            3. Rossi has only made qualitative claims, there is nothing to confirm his “client” is at arms length, no independent quantitative confirmations and we cannot determine (yet) if there is subsequent (conflict of interest) commercial tie in, in any case I understand its all under a NDA. If there were a dozen or so clients widespread and their power input vs power output stats were not under a NDA then I wouldn’t be offering as many concerns.

            4. You bring up a definitive issue, we don’t know the specs or even if it was offered in that ‘in your face’ context. If client were definitely at arms length then sure, the gas supply mass could be an issue and there are so many ways to get around regarding; negotiations, contracts issues, including even a “don’t worry – here is 5% of my co for being the first client greed motive” and if the client were smart he would arrange a significant $ contractual retention in an escrow account so any gas input energy could be independently verified by appropriate offset in respect of that retention. this is alone is huge area of commercial complexity & my own suspicions are the “client” is not completely genuine, either from the very start or became so subsequently from greed (share of Rossi’s co) or sheer embarrassment (getting locked in to a contract), have seen such latter scenario elsewhere & not at all pleasant…

            5. There is a tinge of prejudice here, there is no wishy-washy critique of anything like a mere play or movie or other ungrounded idle opinion with no physical substance. This is Physics & Engineering at its key and specifically Experimental Methodology (EM), all of which Rossi only makes vague claims any uni tests are massaged by ‘scope of work’. Granted its not for the public, I’m a professional engineer and been trained in EM which didn’t stop at uni, been doing this for decades and its not a static field at all. If you can find anything recent (last 9mths) you believe to be a substantive EM which definitively proves Rossi’s claims (especially in respect of his one client) I would be very interested and appreciate your efforts & will to review it, so far none such exists that I know of :-(

            6. Not snake oil, so far as I know Rossi is *only* claiming high heat output but, for any engineer whether; electrical, electronic, communications, mechanical, mechatronic, civil etc there is this university “common first year” where key thermodynamics (as part of uni level Physics) are taught practically eg labs too so students learn that a heat source with a sufficient density can be easily coupled to a steam turbine & genset. Many global co’s offer this as a drop in (shipping container based too) with easy turnkey setup but, if actually done would very quickly disclose if anything were invalid in Rossi’s claims by whats called “end to end thermodynamic” analysis ie Whether the numbers really do add up !
            Fact this avenue hasnt been explored at all by Rossi despite many asking him (including me & others I know in other countries) & over many years says he Won’t do it – why so – even under tight independent university oversight, come on now ?
            I’m fortunate (more or less) to have been exposed to the ways long term but subtle scams can be crafted. Understood this when running my own lab investigating so called over-unity motors/generators, despite the emotional claims of the ‘inventors’ not one worked. Unfortunately back yard enthusiasts who rediscover the electric motor principles of Faraday and observe HV arcing confuse low voltage in with higher voltage out as useful power and just cannot understand why power needs to be measured by precise methods of integration. In that respect maths is an absolute essential with basic physics re thermodynamic principals.

            When one has a key education in maths & physics one becomes immune to propaganda at so many levels as the core physics has had rubbish pseudo-science beaten out of it so well over the last 150+ years by all sorts of people making ambit claims arising from greed or naive emotional attachments.
            Evidence and the rational appreciation of that evidence re maths & physics wins out big time. In Rossi’s case you need to add Psychology, intent & sources of motivations for fraud. Eg Criminology is one of my lesser hobby interests, partly as I have been the victim a few times and hate liars, cheats and scammers. With the right tools & education its very easy to spot them and early on too and if prepared to take a risk even trick them to earn a few $ with great care but, does require tenacious investigative efforts.

            Cheers

          2. I like to keep informed of Rossi’s progress.

            Rossi’s shipping container based unit in a industrial environment is nearing the end of its first one year test cycle. I’m waiting to hear whether it met or failed to meet its contract criteria. I suppose the key test is whether the client keeps it or makes Rossi remove it.

            My understanding is that Rossi’s e-cat requires it to be heated to operating temperature before it becomes self-sustaining. My understanding is also that he uses electricity for heating and control of the e-cat reaction, but I can see where he might also use natural gas.

            Since search engines are unreliable, do you have any links to Rossi’s use of natural gas in either his test units or shipping container unit?

          3. Reply to “dana”, again taking sentences in numbered seq:-
            1. Up to you, I don’t wish to be primary vector, I’ve other interests, up to 19 tech projects of which 4 active in finance & day trading Australian stocks @ ~ A$2M/month, I’m busy, lucky you’re caught me @ 1am before travel
            2-4. Sure, there are sites for this you can bookmark & use background utility to automatically tell you if content changes, an old free moderately reliable one is webmon from enthusiast in UK &others abound.
            5. AC/DC more than adequate, higher density than gas, far safer, thermodynamically optimum as batteries cheap.
            6. Gas, total waste of effort & odd naive distraction. For Rossi who claims to know thermodynamics re nucleonics can’t do a simple first year uni thermodynamic ‘end to end’ analysis gas vs electric, another fail :-(
            7. No ! I didn’t say unreliable, be careful with choice of language/implied satire please, I specifically said “Don’t expect any search engine to be completely reliable or specific re your search string…”, that is *completely* different to your (prejudicial/satire) mis-characterization !
            8. Please apply google appropriately mindful of its methodology & re-read intent in my last post, although Rossi’s scenario can be educative to some, its reached its asymptote for me ages ago (as current status), associates and I have no more interest in this or discussing it any more with you given your tone & mis-interpretation of my comments. Suggest this google string ‘Rossi “e-cat” gas natural’ where single quotes as delineators removed , doubles included in google submission & experiment with variations, use tools at your discretion, now thats it for me, goodbye.

          1. Dave says:
            “Catalytic combustion and fusion are two quite different things”
            Beg Pardon, didn’t say anything about combustion and of course you are quite correct but, please review and look up A.Rossi and his “e-cat”. My comment specifically in context with his claims to use a “catalyser” to promote fusion ostensibly hydrogen with nickel with power outputs 2-3 orders of magnitude greater than occurs in suns core !

          1. The experimenter is trialing conventional fusion, neutrons are an indication of that, hence important to measure rate reliably

            Given the nature of the setup the neutron flux is expected to be very low but, its still radiation & all radiation can be damaging (eg so called “Neutron” bomb) so its sensible to be apprised of risk assessment at the very least. There is always some background radiation but, wouldn’t you want to know if there was any dose you were getting which could be above that as it can cause cancers ?

            In respect of the claimed fusion by A.Rossi at the high level/rate he claims you’d expect high neutron flux and thus very dangerous but, his metal reaction chamber has far less density than the sun’s core (less chance to capture/absorb them) thus, his base “physics” (for which there are no peer-reviewed article/journal papers) is so far from what we know about demonstrable fusion that the “balance of probabilities” doesn’t favour A.Rossi being truthful or even competent. His claim however, is the fusion process is “a-neutronic” meaning low neutron output but sustained for high energy output, very unlikely but this might be the case however, its a huge stretch of credulity as no other lab anywhere in the world has ever produced fusion at the high level claimed by A.Rossi and there is nil theoretical physics basis upon which which to even engineer the design & implementation of a ‘reaction chamber’ to offer those rates whilst simultaneously not producing indicative neutron flux.

          2. Until you can get stupidly high production, no.
            Neutrons moving at anything more then thermal speeds don’t really want to interact that much (because they are electrically neutral…), they mostly just pass through without doing anything…

          3. ‘AKA the A’ with one of the most ignorant of all claims said
            “Until you can get stupidly high production, no.
            Neutrons moving at anything more then thermal speeds don’t really want to interact that much (because they are electrically neutral…), they mostly just pass through without doing anything…”

            No !

            Please get to grip with Nucleonics and learn that *all* types of radioactive emissions ie radiation can be harmful and the only real safe level of radiation is as close to zero as possible, Neutron radiation is an odd case as is ‘indirectly’ ionising and as the body is mostly water (ie High H2) then its particularly dangerous, please read the following link and if you still think I am wrong or off beam with your ambit claim them please return and tell me (shakes head), next time please check before posting on a public forum where you can’t edit afterwards and it becomes a legacy which can so easily mislead those naive that read your posts !

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_radiation

    2. The description has a bight spot from electrons “freed by the fusion process”. I would hazard to guess that is either those pesky electrons easily freed by the ionization which leaves the deuterons floating about, or electrons emitted from a conductor.

      As for verifying fusion, that should not be such a big challenge. First, use a simple spectroscope and measure intensity of emission on spectral lines produced by helium and not by hydrogen or deuterium. Check the ratio of H to D at the same time. Second surround the reaction vessel with something with a lot of hydrogen like plastic, paraffin, or water. Any neutrons will be thermalized by collisions and be captured by a hydrogen atom to form a deuteron and give of a gamma ray of 2.2MeV (= the binding energy of the deuteron). That is a pretty good gamma and a very specific energy. A DIY pulse height detector and a large area gamma detector – like a photodiode and a large body of a commercial fluer fluid as used in biology might do the trick.

      Counting over some long periods with nothing changed but the high voltage applied should detect something if it is happening. I like the spectral method. Very sensitive, and spontaneous appearing of helium in your apparatus would be, uhm, rare. Plus the helium stays around and will build up. Neutrons will be gone and the gamma from a capture will be gonner even fasterer.

      1. A neutron detector is the best way to verify fusion. Neutron capture in indium with gamma spectroscopy is one way. Fast fission neutron detectors or thermal neutron capture detectors are another way. The bright spot should be dead center in the cathode cage, but it does not appear to be (in the photo), which indicates a non-uniform field intensity.

        1. You need a lot of neutrons to use indium. The half-life from activation by neutrons is less than an hour. It will be decaying as fast as it is capturing in the expected (?) output of these experiments. I would definitely go with thermalizing with water and detecting the deuteron binding energy gamma with a fluor fluid. If you use indium you can increase the likelihood of detection by putting the indium in a container of a fluorescing liquid so you get a flash for gammas going in any direction.

          However, I would save the time and money and effort and look for helium first. The device is already a discharge tube. Just make a spectroscope. I realize the helium idea will be moot if the fusion rate is really low and the amount of helium takes forever to become detectable. This will take some calculation.

        2. By the way, the indium capture is nearly always with thermal neutrons. Indium doesn’t activate worth a darn with fast neutrons. Fast being the 10+ MEV usually produced in a “neutron howitzer”. Indium activation probability goes way up when down in the 100’s of EV range – which is why it is called thermal, it is near the energy of a nucleus in hot air.

          1. It isn’t the flux, it is the energy. They need to be slow. You need some quantity or flux in order to either activate enough indium in a short burst of production so you can then look for the gamma, or you need enough neutrons over time for the amount of activated indium to increase faster than it is decaying with that short half-life. DD fusion produces a 4MeV neutron. You need to thermalize that through collisions down to the low hundreds or less. The typical way is with hydrogen rich material like paraffin or water. Like 30cm of water on all sides. But you will be losing neutrons as some react with the hydrogen to make deuterium and release the 2.2MeV gamma. Since you are already making deuterium binding energy gammas, you will be wasting them – and their associated neutrons from fusion – if you go for detection with indium. It strikes me as very inefficient and overly complicated.

          2. That’s why I said thermalized. Thermal neutrons have low energy. “Thermalized” indicates low energy. Low enough to allow capture with a large neutron cross section target without recoil.

    1. Unless he’s trying to run it AC and he’s got a DC bias.

      I think you’d have to go mercury vacuum tube rectifier to get DC for all that, granted it might be outside the size of a shipping container (:

      1. Why? To rectify 9A @40kV you just need a string of 9A diodes. Probably best with some controlled leakage or Zener-like characteristic. I would submerse them in transformer (insulating) oil for cooling and insulation.
        Or better use a 3 phase transformer and a 3ph bridge with 3A diodes.
        It would only get to the size of a shipping container IF you use your mercury arc rectifier. :-)

  5. fusors are a cool little toy, or a teaching tool perhaps. but you will never reach breakeven with one. the grids tend to melt and contaminate the plasma and provide a path to ground. they also tend to block some of the circulating particles. its very hard to get ions to collide with eachother, a large number of passes need to happen to insure a good statistical probability of fusion, and if one of these passes hits a grid, all the energy that went into heating that particle is wasted to grid heating.

    you have to move up to the fusor’s successor, the polywell, before you got a machine that might be able to work.

    1. DV82XL says
      “..unit this size would produce a significant neutron flux and the lack there of suggests he is not fusing quite yet”
      Well, not necessarily so, it depends on several dynamics & its generally accepted it is difficult & expensive to measure neutron flux reliably across likely low flux levels re that whole area, in respect of this experiment, is unclear so I’ve made a post on his page (the first it seems) to ask about the “neutron dosimeter”. Please see my previous post re fusion comments in general & re Neutristor link…

      1. If you look at other small fusor projects out there you will find reports of good neutron production at the energies he claims to be working at so while there might be some going on, I don’t think he is anywhere near the potential a setup like that should yield.

        1. I understand your perspective, its just that my experience observing variance with keen but amateur, setups no matter how well built, allows opportunity for somewhat wider variance than professionally engineered constructions and the dynamics within the chamber just might allow for neutron production in regions not able to be closely monitored and in any case it comes down squarely to the detector; reliability, age, calibration, location & accomodative sweep locations etc Although there is the likelihood you are correct one shouldn’t discount imponderables unable to be explored readily and so early and in sporadic operating conditions too.
          Although I’ve worked with Cs137 & Co60 re nucleonic re flow gauge mass flow measurements circa 1979 with Mt Newman Mining in Newman, Western Australia & these are beta emitters, our scintillation counters and their associated electronics were often “not in step” with expectations at remarkably diverse variances…
          That particular experience and more recent exploration of low energy nuclear experimental design methodology re neutrons/gamma & unusual results still under investigation suggests the expectation of determinism there isn’t fusion at the level expected re such a setup may be overly optimistic…

          1. Well this isn’t an LENR setup and even if there is incidental neutron production due to some sort of alternate path or due to general low energy probabilistic effects this is not what devices like this are expected to do. Indeed accurate measurement has been a issue with amateur fusors, this has usually been one of precision rather than detection pe se.

          2. Apologies, I did not intend to imply in any way this was anything approaching any sort of LENR setup at all, which fortunately wasn’t touched on by the experimenter (phew). I am illustrating, from my peculiar nucleonic experience long ago and more recently, the general paradigm of variance regarding experimental methods & problematic measurement investigations re neutrons & difficulties thereof.
            I agree with you completely re that measurement issue and attendant combinatorial complexity especially so as those hurdles can be huge even for many believing themselves to be professionals, that is my primary focus and interested in that over and above any (fringe) LENR aspect which you might have perceived, hence my post on the experimenters site re his neutron detector only, cheers

    1. I think the article has not explained that 9A is going in and 40kV is coming out. As various other posters here have pointed out, 40kV at 9A is 360kW – enough to run a whole street. Nobody is going to draw that from the public mains, and if you wanted to produce that much power yourself you’d need a generator the size of a shipping container.

  6. I wish people woul READ first, then comment. The edit says “pulls 9 amps,” that’s at the input or mains. If we assume it’s using a 240 volt source that’s only about 2 kilowats or about the power required for a heavy workshop heat gun or a single household baseboard heater. IE=P, 9×240=2160 watts.

  7. I’m seeing a completely different application from this. In most basic terms google “helium shortage”. Get some distilled water and fix the problem. WTF? Myopic comments much?

    1. Not sure what you are getting at, the google link you found might have misled you. Yes there is a pending helium shortage but, its unlikely you will ever get anywhere near enough from any fusion reaction via distilled water to even measure (for an amateur setup) to offset any shortage at all however, if one did then HEY the amount of power that can produce is huge and worth many millions more than helium !

      When you say Myopic, most are focused on the core Physics, you have a point that widening focus you can find other opportunities, its just that the benefit of the Physics at present as it is shows, in this case, its not in any way practical :-(

      Incidentally, with the increased interest in natural gas and if the processing were improved more helium can be extracted as natural gas has sizable helium depending on location, if price of helium goes up it opens opportunities for the gas co’s to profit more…

      1. The helium shortage is in helium-3, not helium-4 that is produced by alpha decay and extracted from natural gas reserves. Increased tritium production in fission reactors is the only way to increase helium-3 reserves.

        1. Beg your Pardon, not only are you mistaken implying there is no He-4 shortage, your implications re He-4 are very wide of the mark re commercial factors as implicit assumption its (easy) to get “somehow” economically from natural gas – which at current prices its definitely not :/
          Please, before making a statement on a public forum where you can’t edit your posts directly, best advice is check first, it takes mere seconds with an appropriate search string and less likely to mislead those that follow that can be naive and take what you say with authority its not meant to impart !
          https://www.google.com.au/search?q=global+helium+shortage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=u9_4Vq6iAeW1mwXQ-qeYDg

          Also I would advise that rather than just lurching at the post, please read the one preceding which elicited Eg my post & thus be apprised of the context, ie Post by JohnScnow didn’t delineate the isotope which is fine, Both He-3 & 4 have pending shortage issues but, as He-3 volume/demand strongly in national security fields its priority of supply/delivery very different dynamic from (larger volume demand) for He-4. Area is complex, point of my post to JohnScnow, is in respect of the production from distilled water, which isnt feasible even if its fully D2O. My eldest son is a chem eng graduate currently doing a PhD re natural gas at Curtin Uni in Perth, Western Australia & we are well versed in its components & comparative economics re extraction & storage & aspects thereof re instrumentation/control is one of the 4 key projects I am currently financing :P

        2. There is no helium-4 shortage at the moment. Tritium reserves are on the rise, and in 12 years there will be a larger supply of helium-3, but still not enough to keep up with demand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s