With an algorithm like that the voltage is "sweeping" not "pulsing". I wish Herb Tarlek would learn to use a dictionary or better yet, consult engineering (too hard to pick up an in-plant telephone?}.
For example take a voltage limited charging source limited to say 1.5 amperes, then apply it with a 15-second on 30-seconds off (555 timer I.C.) to a 100 ampere hour battery. The voltage sweep would be identical. There is more to it of course - the inclusion of a thermistor for temperature compensation with a finished product.
But the sweep is not something to to rattle shrunken skulls about. It is easier on a battery to see an appropriate constant voltage.
See if you can find (out of the thousands of emergency lighting products on the market) one single solitary product that utilizes sweeping voltage battery maintenance charge.
Any claims made that sweep maintenance voltage would be superior would invariably be utterly unsupported by documented blind field trials. If the feature remains silent, not hyped or promoted then it is benign and cannot be construed as a negative strike against the manufacturer. However if the feature is hyped it is a horse of a different color.
