New Replication Attempt by Benoit Schillings

Another attempt to replicate an E-Cat-type reactor has come to my attention via Facebook. Benoit Schillings has started a thread in which he describes his idea for a reactor design:

“I am setting up a prototype using Titanium Hydride which seems to be a better source of Hydogren with much easier control than LiAlH4. Prototype is in a fat wall quartz tube and direct joule heating (no heating wire). Any comments/ideas ?”

Benoit explains that he will use quartz/Silica tube as the reactor vessel because it can withstand temperatures up to 1400C, and that since it is transparent he will be able to visually monitor the contents of the reactor. He also explains that Titanium Hydride is his choice of a hydrogen source because it is safer to work with than lithium aluminum hydride as it does not react with moisture at room temperature, and releases hydrogen at 500C

There’s no source of lithium in this experiment, and since that was present in both the Lugano Hot Cat and the Parkhomov reactor, I wonder if that might affect the performance of this reaction.

Benoit is in the San Francisco Bay area, and invites anyone who might like to work with him to make contact via Facebook. There’s also a thread in LENR-Forum where people can interact with Benoit here:

  • Andreas Moraitis

    “The heating is done by direct joule heating of the pow[d]er by providing direct current with two electrodes reaching across the seal. (think arc furnace).“

    I like this idea!

    • suhas R

      Rubiitpower india has done it with processed–rigorously surface engineered — Titanium micro powder with other metal powders and standard hydrides to repeatedly achieve just under 5kwH. level.
      Our expts with quartz tubes were miserable thermo-mechanical failures

      • Wishful Thinking Fusion

        Suhas, you keep mentioning Rubiitpower. Can you provide us with more info? A website? Anything where we can find out more?

      • parallelB

        Can you tell us more about the Rubiitpower work? Are they claiming anomalous heat or was the 5kW the input?

        Measuring the heat generated by Shillings’ idea may be more difficult unless he uses the Parkhemov calorimeter.

      • SG

        Without more information, few will pay attention. The reason the Rossi / Parkamov approach has captured the imagination and efforts of the LENR community is because there is now enough information in the public domain to attempt serious replications.

  • Ged

    Good luck to him indeed! Like the sound of his titanium hydride, and it’ll be interesting to see if lithium isn’t reqired.

  • Sanjeev

    Jack Cole is getting about 16W excess with TiH2.
    New experiment.

  • pelgrim108

    Please make a high quality video of the LENR ( if it occurs) as seen throught the quartz glass.
    I would love to see it.

  • bachcole

    Nice. Thinking outside the box that is always created even when people go outside of the box.

    These replication attempts are going to proliferate. Should we call this Low Energy Nuclear Proliferation (LENP)? Will we even be able to keep up with it. Perhaps we should “assign” one person to follow their progress when we get dozens of people doing it.

    • pelgrim108

      Maybe LENRRRR ?
      Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Rossi Reactor Replications. Just kidding. There needs to be a hall of fame for these nobel replicators.

  • Omega Z

    Me has a very valid point. All these different attempts other then being interesting mean nothing. Even if they were to provide what appears to be excess heat, It would just be another Maybe.

    Even tho Caleni & Piantelli have shared a lot of Info with MFMP, they have withheld certain knowledge & details.

    MFMP’s only Real possibility appears to be Replicating Parkhomov’s device. I say “Appears” because Parkhomov could also be withholding certain information.

    However, if Parkhomov is completely open to sharing all info, this is their best opportunity. They should follow that & do it as precisely as possible. No shortcuts or modifications. One that can actually be considered a Replication.

    Should they get very similar results, They could then use different calorimetry techniques to firm up the results. They could then share their knowledge to allow a 3rd replication. If this is accomplished, it becomes very hard for others to sweep aside as error.

    Once reaching this point, they could then make changes to be as close as possible to the Lugano reactor in all known details Or try different apparatus & methods as they wish.

    At the Present, It just feels like they are trying to reinvent the wheel & they don’t know how to make the 1st one yet.

    • Owen Geiger

      You said, “All these different attempts other then being interesting mean nothing.”

      Nothing? No value whatsoever? Don’t you think these LENR replication efforts are going to encourage other scientists to get involved? That seems like a very good thing to me. I agree with your general premise, but to discourage research of novel methods doesn’t make sense. LENR may be the greatest discovery in history. Let’s encourage thousands of scientists to investigate this. Let them decide what approach is best. It’s their time and money after all. Some will try to replicate Parkhomov and Rossi as close as possible. That’s good. Others will try different methods. Do this enough times and eventually new discoveries will be made to advance the field. That’s basically what Rossi did — he improved the effect through a trial and error approach.

      Notice how we now have thousands of different types of wheels that are far superior to the stone wheel in the cartoon.

      • Omega Z

        Yes, They are interesting. We’ve had 25 years of interesting.
        And if the current path is continued, we will have many more years of interesting.

        A hundred people show evidence of excess heat. All using a different technic & different materials. Some may be in error. Some may be real. Who do you invest in.

        All these different approaches mean pretty much nothing. They will continue to mean nothing until we have 1 device, 1 process that can be replicated & replicated again. If someone had such a device, Of all involved in this field, Who would you invest in.

        In the mean time, People like Piantelli can continue to auction off bottles of wine to obtain funding.

        Don’t you think these LENR replication efforts are going to encourage other scientists to get involved?
        Only a few. And here is why.
        “LENR replication efforts”
        There have been no REAL replications. This line of research is Taboo & a career ender for many & there is little funding available.

        Once you have a Real Replication done several times, Attitudes will really begin to change. People will become much more interested in investing their money into this.(They wont want to get left out) The Taboo will begin to recede & careers become much less at risk.

        If Parkhomov is really willing to disclose all his process, MFMP should focus on this. If they can replicate it precisely & verify the results, Transfer this Info freely, Others will quickly follow.
        The Wall will come down.

        You can then create thousands of different types of wheels. I mean, Who wants to create a thousand of something that doesn’t work.

        • Owen Geiger

          Your reply helped me realize that I’m making certain assumptions. For one, I’m convinced Rossi has the real deal (a practical, functional reactor for commercial use). There’s tons of hard and soft evidence that supports this view. I believe the IH pilot plant will be a major game changer after it’s publicly revealed next year.

          In the meantime, lots of replication efforts create a piling on effect sort of like throwing wood on a fire. Each serious replication attempt builds interest and broader awareness. I figure if Parkhomov can figure it out, others will too, especially if he publishes all of his details as he’s agreed to do. (This is another assumption.) It’s just a matter of time. Some people will gravitate toward replicating his method. Others will try other variations. It takes all kinds. I don’t think you can control what inventors do with their time and money. It seems futile to expect them to stick to replicating one reactor design. As far as MFMP, they are working towards replicating Parkhomov in their own way at their own pace.

          Unlike LENR experiments for the last 25 years, we now have more evidence of how to build reactors that produce significant amounts of heat. So another assumption is the number and pace of new replication attempts will continue to increase. Just look what’s happened in the last 2 months. Some of these efforts will likely have decent COPs that draw more attention to this field. I believe it’s going to build and build.

  • Sanjeev

    I repeat this advice everywhere and many other have repeated the same many times. But it seems that the experimenters always like to dance around the original setup rather than going ahead and copying it blindly.

    After some deep digging, you will see that they do not do it intentionally. They want to replicate exactly, but end up with something different because of various reasons.

    Sometimes the exact materials and instruments are not available, sometimes the skills are insufficient or sometimes the copy simply fails due to some unknown reason. The experimenter, out of curiosity and impatience tries something else. Why wait for the supplies and just sit there when I can try it with equipment that I have in hand now.

    So it appears that things just happen, we cannot dictate everything, we are just onlookers. Its good that people are trying at all. Eventually, there will be an exact replication of Parkhomov, and then of Rossi’s cat. May be, by that time both of them will have their umpteenth version of reactors running and people will rush to catch up with whatever is the latest.

    • Warthog

      Failed experiments and “off-target” attempts still provide usable data. Exact replication is difficult even with lots of money, good facilities, and cooperative investigators. And the thing you are faulting these folks for is PRECISELY what the so-called “replicators” of Pons and Fleischmann did.

      Instead of waiting for the P & F publication of details, they hopped into the laboratory and built reactors….none of which were “exact” replications of P & F…….but when their attempts failed, they took their own results as definitive proof that P & F were wrong.

      The ONE exception I know about in detail was that of Bockris, who called up Fleischmann and basically asked “what EXACTLY did you do, dude?” He succeeded, though he detected tritium rather than heat or other forms of radioactivity.

      I read recently that there was a survey of all the early experiments, and IIRC, there were two hundred or so failures, and about fifty successes. Detailed analysis of the failures with what is known today about CF was able to identify WHY, in each case, the attempts failed.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Apple’s „Newton“ was a flop, but in fact it has been the predecessor of the iPhone. So perhaps we should not discredit Newton’s apple…

  • Colibric41AC

    why they dont try cold cat instead, you want release hydrogen, release it with direct hose of hydrogen, rossi was doing cold cat before hot cat. because hot cat as better cop or something else he must find another method to release hydrogen because it’s too hot for direct insertion of hydrogen gas