Again I can not agree more with you and John B. Paralleling these will substantially improve their life spans. But I still think we need to build in some safety device to make sure the cells are not capable of self destruction. It will limit the current and keep them strong.

 Yes the BMS will be very necessary for this application. You got to understand that each cell in the parallel bunch are singular and they have limits from what I am seeing. This limit is based on the material we choose for the crystalline structure. It's phasing point or melting point is the problem. It is all well known about how this process works. Too much heat and the battery goes gooey.

 So I am guessing that this is what chemical batteries do. The initial reaction is from the setup and gets a boost from the chemical reaction. When the chemical reaction is spent either the battery needs a recharge or the battery will maintain a limited current capability.

 Having many of these weak cells in parallel will eventually even the odds and we should be able to attain the same level as battery technology currently with no use of chemical reaction or at the least very little chemical reaction.

 I had a chance last night to think about this in the half dreaming state. The process we are seeing here to lock in this materials structure is the heat phase transition of the crystalline material we are using. Through complicated structure geometry it is making a diode like structure. When we short out the cell as well in the forming of this structure it aligns up more efficiently through the structure. We are not allowing the structure to form in any other fashion by using this process.

 When I was younger I saw a video of a very important experiment. It was a very simple experiment. Charge a plastic comb with static energy and it will make the salt or sugar crystals jump and move around. Well I am having a hard time finding the original video this one should help you to understand the process a bit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT4UVsfZkwg

 In that video we see the effects of potential on the matter of the rice crispies. I suggest we are doing the same thing but in our case the charge is based off the matter itself. With one metal having a better ability to convey charge through itself then the other. We increase the phase temp of the crystalline structure into the molten phase. This allows the structure to become very mobile and pliable. With two metals with different charge levels inserted it will pull the crystalline structure into a new form. That form is locked in as the temperature lowers back into the rigid structure mode and locks that new form in. This new form is very capable of providing one way flow by virtue of it's shape(geometry) alone. Water and heat are merely the method to use in this process. It is not what drives this new type of battery. It is the mechanic building process and if there is water left in the crystal then it is working against the action we have set up.

 Most of my revelations about this always lead me back to surfaces and tensions on those surfaces. Just like a drum we are creating a surface tension then letting the ambient waves drum on that surface and collecting that energy. These batteries are only acting as one way valves in that sense and reject most anything in the other direction. This is very akin to the way Moray did his device.

 I would suspect that the best geometry of this device should reflect back to the geometry of the field we are using to setup the crystal lattice in the phase transform. Since we are using pyramidal based crystals the device should resonate with that shape as well. I'm assuming the tetrahedron(Borax) is that structure or geometry and the pyramid is the fill material or Alum or in some way fits together to provide a flow in one way.

 Yes Nick I am aware of the thread at EF. The problem there is I have no access. Mostly because I couldn't stop myself from giving my opinion about a rather public battle on there. The problem is some people like to lay claim to things because they mod one little part of the system. This I took exception to. It has always been touted that EF was an open source en-devour. The problem is that people didn't invent the stuff we are using. Yes they thought of new ways to put them together but much as everyone is learning life itself draws from this energy. The matter we intake facilitates the potential differences that we need to organize and use this energy to our ends. They did not invent that. We are merely discovering these materials out. We are not inventing them. They are not doing anything that they were not naturally designed to do.

 I would appreciate it if you guys expanded your forums reach and participated here as well. Seeing that the EF forum is only about making money I thought we would gather in many places ensuring this stays public information. You guys know that Aaron owns that board. There is nothing Open Source about that. He can do the same to you as he has to me and restricted access to me because I called him out on a few things. Although those posts got deleted they were valid and I stand by them.

 So please talk to the EF experimenters and ask them to move or copy the information to this thread or even start a new one dedicated to the whole story about these batteries. I for one would like to participate but I don't see any action on this forum when compared to the EF.

 One avenue I am going to look into is the compression of the crystalline structure as it forms. I am thinking this is the technique which would increase the density of these "batteries" or Valves as I like to call them. The round version, inside of a tube is much better. This allows a natural Tension to build up inside of the crystal structure. As the material phase changes with heat it acts much like water does as it goes to ice phase. This causes a smaller layer of crystalline matterial and the density changes as the crystal forms in the interior. Higher density means more push power. So this compresses the exterior crystals into the tubing causing a pumping action to happen in one direction only. I would think someone should look into what crystal they use in electric lighters. You know the ones they snap a crystal and it conducts one way. Some of those put out 1k volts sometimes 2k.

 Maybe we should look into this: Polyvinylidene fluoride

   I've been working on a cylindrical carbon/quartz cell that is made in a 1 1/4 by 2 inch long piece of galvanized tube. I've included powdered quartz, and some powdered sea shells into the carbon electrolyte mix. For the anode I made a spiral of thick copper wire.  This cell uses no additional chemicals, salts, water, heat, or semiconductor treatment on the metals.  Seams to work well so far.  My multimeter is not working so I can't say what the cell is outputting, yet, but it seams to work ok, even without the use of the caustic chemicals that my other cells had.   Although the previous cells worked very well, with each cell having over 50 mA of current output, the chemicals in the carbon from the carbon/zinc batteries I used, would oxidize the aluminum capacitor can that I had used previously. Now I think that I've eliminated that oxidation problem. Plus I've hermetically sealed the cell with bees wax, on the top and bottom, and coated the inside and the outside of the galvanized tube with conducting grease. 
 
  The addition of Alum can cause a build up of presure inside of a totally sealed cell that may help to increase the output as the Alum crystals keep growing. I have not tried it though, as I'm trying to stay away from the use of salts, altogether, if I can.

  As far as the shape of the cell goes...  John H mentioned that they think that the cylinder shaped cells can have more output when compared to the flat sheet metal type cells, that otherwise use the same materials. 
                           NickZ
   

  Although I don't use the cell mix that is mentioned above by Rick,  it is the combination of the two different salts that gives more output than just using one or the other by itself.  Ibpointless2 has tried the various salts by themselves and together. 
  John B has been trying many different chemicals in his various mixes. And also mentioned that the sodium carbonate cells output was underrated at 150mAs. That it really is more like 250mAs. But, he has never shown that kind of output. On one of his last posts he mentioned that the output that can be expected is in the 2 to 35mA range, from the mix mentioned in the previous post above. So, I'm a bit confused, but if that is all the output that can be expected from such an elaborate combination or even his semiconductor mix, it's not much...  as I get that from my cells without any of the fuss.  I'm not trying to knock his system, as I know how hard it has been to obtain any worthwhile results. It's just that getting only a few mAs is not really worth the trouble. Plus the increasing cell impedance over time will drop the output even further. So, I have not seen anything really useful come out of any of these tests, yet.  We are still very very far away when compared to using solar panels, and regular lead acid batteries to light leds.
  The benefit of using this kind of perpetual output cells is when there is no sunlight available, like for those living in apartments, or where there are trees blocking the sun, as in my case. 
   I don't know if we are getting any closer to our goals, but there is always hope. 
                      NickZ

  I don't know what to make of the Ib cell reading 2 amps, but as I recall it drops quite fast under a load. That is the whole point of any of these cells, it doesn't matter if they bounce back or not when disconnected, as that is not going to help to power a load. If the output drops with the meter reading, it is a weak cell.
It's not what output a cell starts at,  but at what running level it can maintain at, when running long term under a load. And a load of at least a red led, lit brightly, not just barely visible. If any cell can maintain at least one red led lit permanently by itself with no help from an oscillator, it's a winner.