HI Pier--

Brief synopsis--He use is growing, supplies are not. The He is mainly 
isolated from natural gas supplies, and those wells are not producing 
like they were. New supplies (north Africa) are not as abundant as was 
expected. US is selling off it's strategic He supply, but that will 
eventually run out. And some current plants will be going off line for 
maintenance, so up to 20% world supply will be offline for a little bit. 
The outlook is for a few more years of really tight supplies, and 
hopefully new fields will come on line then. So conserve where you can.

take care

gerry

Pier de Groot wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Your link to the publication is only for subscribers... And I have no
> subscription!
>
> Can you give in short why? It interest me to learn why we have He short
> supply. Since the overwhelming part of light element stable isotope analysis
> is 'CF' related nowadays, it is of high importance to learn about this for a
> large group of analysts - briefly said, the majority of this list will be
> interested.
>
> Thanks anyway for bringing up this matter.
> Best regards,
> Pier.
>
> ****************************************************************
> Delta Isotopes Consultancy
>
> Dr. Pier A. de Groot
> Pastoor Moorkensstraat 16
> 2400 Mol - Achterbos
> Belgium
> Tel. +32 (0)14 326 205
> e-mail: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
>
> Associate editor for stable isotopes of eEarth on-line magazine
> http://www.electronic-earth.net
>
> Head of Isotopes in Geosciences of the European Geoscience Union (EGU).
> EGU Home web-site: http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/EGU.html
>
> Organization Committee member of BASIS (Benelux Association of Stable
> Isotope Scientists).
> http://www.basis-online.eu/
>
> Visit my WEB-site about my ³Handbook of Stable Isotope Analytical
> Techniques², with a link to the Elsevier web site on the handbook (marked:
> ŒOrder Now¹):
> http://users.pandora.be/handbook/index.html
> last update: August 15, 2005
> Volume I is now available. Volume II is expected to be available in 2008.
>
> ****************************************************************
>
>
>   
>> From: Paul Brooks <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Stable Isotope Geochemistry <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:46:28 -0700
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: [ISOGEOCHEM] why He is in short supply
>>
>> Helium users:
>>
>> I just ran across this article that may be of interest to He users:
>>
>> http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/85/i41/html/8541bus3.html
>>
>>
>> Paul Brooks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 10:19 AM 10/24/2007, you wrote:
>>     
>>> Dear Charlotte,
>>> I agree with Wolfram. The ion beams might have two maximums for some
>>> voltages.
>>> I prefer to do the manual search first and then finish with autofocus. The
>>> algorithm for autofocus (I think) searchs only for the nearest maximum,
>>> next to
>>> the start point.
>>> Regards,
>>> Sergey.
>>> --
>>> Sergey Oleynik, PhD
>>> Dept. Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
>>> Purdue University
>>> 550 Stadium Mall Drive
>>> West Lafayette, IN 47907
>>> Phone: 765-494-3274
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting Wolfram Meier-Augenstein <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Dear Charlotte,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When you change the filament, could you have a look at the filament
>>>>         
>>> wire with
>>>       
>>>> a magnifying lens to see if the wire is still straight or has sagged a bit?
>>>> Similarly, could you look for uneven wear and tear (thinning of the
>>>>         
>>> wire)? In
>>>       
>>>> addition, before you remove the screw could you have a look to see if the
>>>> filament assembly has some freedom of movement however slight?
>>>>
>>>> Anything that moves the filament wire from the ideal centre plane (usually
>>>> downwards) will lead to a dramatic loss in sensitivity and sometime even
>>>> isotopic linearity. I guess what I am saying here is don't throw the
>>>>         
>>> filament
>>>       
>>>> away if the filament wire looks OK but if the assembly (ceramic holder) may
>>>> have dropped just a teensy weensy bit
>>>>
>>>> Also, if it's not too late already, before you go filament changing,
>>>>         
>>> give the
>>>       
>>>> focus suggestion one more try but this time do not use the default
>>>>         
>>> auto-tune
>>>       
>>>> settings. Either tune manually or increase the step width (and the
>>>>         
>>> number of
>>>       
>>>> iterations).
>>>>
>>>> No offence to Bremen but the auto-focus feature is only half as intelligent
>>>> as it would have us believe. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has
>>>> seen a signal improvement of -500mV (!) or worse after an auto-focus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Wolfram
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *****************************************************************
>>>> "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
>>>>
>>>> Aldous Huxley, "Proper Studies", 1927
>>>> *****************************************************************
>>>>
>>>> Dr W Meier-Augenstein
>>>> Senior Lecturer in Stable Isotope Forensics
>>>>
>>>> Environmental Forensics & Human Health Research Group
>>>> EERC, S.P.A.C.E.
>>>> Queen's University Belfast
>>>> David Keir Building
>>>> 39-123 Stranmillis Road
>>>> Belfast, BT9 5AG
>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>
>>>> Tel.: +44 (0)28 9097 4015
>>>> Fax: +44 (0)28 9066 3754
>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>> URL (Isotope Lab): http://www.qub.ac.uk/eerc/facilities/siff.htm
>>>> URL (Research):
>>>> http://www.qub.ac.uk/eerc/people/academic_staff/wma/wm_a/efnhh.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Stable Isotope Geochemistry [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>>>         
>>> Behalf
>>>       
>>>> Of Charlotte Lehmann
>>>> Sent: 24 October 2007 15:55
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [ISOGEOCHEM] Dramatic Sensitivity Decrease
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the suggestions everybody.
>>>> The box and trap values are as they should be 0.7-0.8 mA.
>>>> The slow magnet scan indicates that peaks are in the same positions
>>>> that they have been.
>>>> The peak shape looks "flat, symmetrical, and not noisy".
>>>> Autofocusing improves the intensities but does not give anywhere near
>>>> the values I was getting and the linearity check shows that it isn't
>>>> linear.
>>>> So, as per the Thermo service engineer, I am going to change the filament.
>>>> --
>>>> Charlotte Lehmann
>>>> Assistant in Instruction
>>>> Bates College
>>>> Department of Geology
>>>> 206A Carnegie Science Building
>>>> 44 Campus Avenue
>>>> Lewiston, ME 04240
>>>> Phone: 207-786-6485
>>>> FAX: 207-786-8334
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting "Bolotin, Jakov" <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi Charlotte,
>>>>>
>>>>> Your Box and Trap currents should both be around 0.7-0.8 mA. If the
>>>>> difference between those currents is high (for example: 1.1 and 0.4)
>>>>> then you should clean your source. If the currents are OK, I would too
>>>>> suggest trying "autofocus".
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Jakov
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Stable Isotope Geochemistry [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Charlotte Lehmann
>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2007 21:43
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ISOGEOCHEM] Dramatic Sensitivity Decrease
>>>>>
>>>>> We have just experienced a dramatic sensitivity decrease as well and I
>>>>> am wondering, while I await ideas from our Thermo service engineer, what
>>>>> ideas the list might have. Here's what transpired with our DeltaV
>>>>> Advantage:
>>>>> Everything had been running well with intensities for masses 44-45-46 in
>>>>> the 4000-5000-6000 mV ranges and for masses 28 and 29 in the 2000 and
>>>>> 1500 ranges, respectively. The filament was replaced and everything
>>>>> tuned to good linearity on 9/10/07. Fresh column and water trap fillings
>>>>> were installed in the EA. And the EA GC-oven was baked out at that time.
>>>>> The helium tank was switched on 9/24/07. No problems seen. The source
>>>>> tripped off to that enigmatic HV reading of 0.35 kV on 10/2/07. But
>>>>> everything looked okay after I turned the source back on and ran okay
>>>>> until now. A new Oxygen tank was put on-line on 10/11/07. Vacuum
>>>>> readings with valves open and closed continue to look great. On 10/15/07
>>>>> I noticed that the source and inlet heaters were not turned on; so I
>>>>> turned them on. Not sure when they got turned off.
>>>>> Nearly 500 samples were run, with the ash trap being emptied as needed.
>>>>> Last Weds. I emptied the ash trap in the Costech ECS4010.
>>>>> Shortly thereafter I checked the intensities of masses 44-45-46 and they
>>>>> were 4418, 5060, and 6160, respectively. Five days later, a sequence run
>>>>> was initiated, and the intensities were 270, 310, and 380 mV
>>>>> respectively, with a corresponding drop in BGD values for masses
>>>>> 44-45-46. Masses 28 and 29 show only 153 and 114 mV respectively; again
>>>>> with corresponding drop in BGD values as well.
>>>>> I have leak checked everything with a GOW-MAC CO2 and He detector. I
>>>>> can't get a peak center on mass 40 since the sensitivity is so low
>>>>> (normally without leaks we are at 8 mV or so).
>>>>> I have checked the ConfloIII to make sure everything is working properly
>>>>> there.
>>>>> I have "fiddled" with the EA valve, but it didn't improve anything to
>>>>> open and close it. This was the service engineer's only suggestion so
>>>>> far, and now I wait for other ideas...
>>>>> I have checked from the GC Trace-GCC-III side to see if the sensitivity
>>>>> loss is observed from there as well and IT IS. So, it appears to be a
>>>>> problem with the source or source electronics.
>>>>> I also tried shutting down the software and the computer and restarting
>>>>> with no change in the situation.
>>>>> Today I took the the opportunity to refresh the columns and water trap
>>>>> in the EA while things were not going to be running (we often do this
>>>>> about every 500-750 samples anyway). The copper wire was as normal about
>>>>> half spent. There was NO brown film in the SS connector tube (from
>>>>> combustion to reduction column) this time as there has been recently.
>>>>> These changes in the EA have not affected the issue, because it is
>>>>> clearly is in the IRMS source.
>>>>> Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Again, the only change between a
>>>>> good run and the loss of sensitivity was that I emptied the ash trap in
>>>>> the EA. I guess I will try turning on the analyzer heater while I wait
>>>>> for ideas. I really hate the thought that the filament has gone belly up
>>>>> in less than six weeks!
>>>>> --
>>>>> Charlotte Lehmann
>>>>> Assistant in Instruction
>>>>> Bates College
>>>>> Department of Geology
>>>>> 206A Carnegie Science Building
>>>>> 44 Campus Avenue
>>>>> Lewiston, ME 04240
>>>>> Phone: 207-786-6485
>>>>> FAX: 207-786-8334
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting Herbert Tobias <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a question about a MAT 252 IRMS.  I vented the instrument to
>>>>>> replace the sampling capillary.  I let it pump down for ~2hrs.  When
>>>>>> testing CO2 gas pulses from a dual inlet volume and injected CO2 from
>>>>>> a GCC interface, the signal was 10x lower than normal.  This means its
>>>>>>             
>>>>>> the IRMS itself.  I tuned the lenses, and now got 4x lower signal than
>>>>>>             
>>>>>> normal, better but not good.  The voltages and currents on the
>>>>>> filament are normal.
>>>>>> Has anyone seen this problem and know how to resolve it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>> -Herb
>>>>>> Cornell University
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>           
>> Center for Stable Isotope Biogeochemistry
>> Valley Life Science Building Room 3060
>> Integrative Biology - MC3140
>> Berkeley CA-94720
>> Phone: (510)-643-1748
>> Fax: (510)-643-1749
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>     
>
>