Interested battery OEMs paid my overhead expenses for pulse charging analysis. The bonded contract agreement was for me to patent my technology then give them exclusivity with regards to licensing. I discharged batteries at a 10 ampere rate GC220s also furnished by them. Total discharge. Rest discharged for 120 hours then recharge constant voltage acceptance for 10 hours. Repeat cycle. After 20 - 50 cycles the batteries would be significantly sulfated. Divide into three groups: 1) Immediate plate disassembly 2) Conventional BCI equalization doctrine applied 3) Varying algorithims of pulse charging. With a 3 phase 20Kw 1-20KHz Westinghouse generator. 0-255 volts I could discipline DUTs as I pleased. This went on for almost four years intermittantly. Using a 10x loupe I cpuld find no significant evidence that any form or recipe of amplitude or frequency would affect latticed PBSO4 better than a regimented maintenance charging regimen. I did find significant evidence of plate boundary interface damage (meaning cured plate paste) softening and shedding of relevent active plate material. What affected latticed PBSO4 destroyed viable plate material. At the end of the exercise I was furnished an unnamed marketed device that proposed "pulsed desulfation technology" kWh transactions were monitored and recorded. I found no significant evidence that pulse charging reduced or removed accumulated PBSO4. A lot of time wasted. Dreams dashed. And 1800 dollars out of my pocket for patent research and initiation. I refused to pursue the issue which upset two companies. They forced me to sign packets of ninety-nine year non-disclosure contracts. So yes I am touchy about this subject. And this I'm afraid is the very last time I intend to broadly cover this. It was a major failure in my life. I can only be satisfied by the fact I treated it publically as an "impersonal exercise" and did not color the prospects. OK Enough...
