Pulse Battery Maintenance Devices

They don't hurt the battery , and there have been some reports of bad interaction with MPPT charge controllers being fooled by the pulse voltages

I use them.  Specifically the Pulsetech units, the *original* designers, although my models are recent issue.  

I don't use them to revive trash, but to keep good batteries healthy.  The important thing to remember is that these guys were the originals, from which spawned all the imitators, who use a different algo to avoid patent issues - some of which are damaging high-voltage pulsing, not the low-voltage type Pulsetech uses.

I have noticed better results on some of my friends batteries which I volunteered to test, but always kept in mind that merely properly charging batteries will get results.  When I included the pulsetech along with my normal chargers, results were much better.  However, like any anonymous internet post - it is good to be skeptical.  Perhaps an independent *LAB* report, something which most everybody wants, but didn't know existed, or just assumed was done by a marketing shill should be made available.  It has.  A long time ago.

One thing NONE of the imitators have done is provided scientific studies from independent labs, something which the military demanded.  See the "Malinsky" reports at the bottom of the page here.  The long report contains the most pertinent data.  The Professor from Ohio U and his lab data are quite interesting.  Look up what Prof Malinsky does today.  This guy is for real, and is not a marketing dweeb.

http://www.xtremecharge.com/XtremeCatalog

You won't find reports like this from the imitators over the years.  I use mine on charge naturally, but also just as important, but frequently overlooked, is using them on discharge as well.  Thing is, my main use is NOT for desulfation believe it or not.  Desulfation is a secondary result, but of course is the most marketable.

The report covers why.  Quite frankly, without those reports, I would have lumped this thing in with all the other hacks out there.  These reports were done about 17 years ago.

If you do use this thing, stick to the reports, and not pie-in-the-sky consumer testimonials (both pro and con), that think this thing's primary purpose is to bring back zombie trash batteries to perfection.

I don't have an MPPT controller, and yes, if you place an AM radio near one, you'll definitely hear the pulses.  My PWM CC's, and my own chargers don't seem to mind since the energy is sinked into the battery, and not the attached devices.  Reports of it interfering with mppt's may just be guesswork from a well-intended naysayer.  (most likely being disappointed with all the other junk that gets cast into the same pulse category.)

Check the report FIRST, and see if it is something you may want to try.

One thing that is important is that the Pulsetech / Malinsky report with x-ray diffraction, electron microscopy and such from Prof Malinsky et al, is that it is coming from an electrochemical background, and not from a radio / audio / hobbiest viewpoint.

A little history - my own studies of LiFeP04 degradation problems led me to research secondary reactions, passivating layers, and so forth that can kill a cell.  This lead me BACK into the field of lead-acid, and to see what I could find along those lines that might be similar.

Lo and behold - the ALABC with PCL 1/2/3 modes of problems, specifically the passivation layer!  That is, the microscopic layer that can exist between a plate and the electrolyte itself.  AHA! 

To make a long story short, the Pulsetech guys - the originators with the electrochemical lab reports, is dealing with reducing the passivating layer to allow current to reach sulfate crystals in the first place for recharging.  Some labs call it "micro stirring".  This reduction in the passivating layers has additional benefits, but no need to go into it here as it is covered elsewhere.  The layer is increased merely by undercharging a Pb batt.

In contrast, the follower-on pulser products over the years seems to look at it from a radio / audio enthusiasts standpoint, not understanding the electrochemical passivation process.  Maybe they read the original Solargizer / Carl E. Gali patents too quickly.

What the other manufacturers with radio and audio engineering backgrounds key on is sulfate "crystals".  And whether it is radio frequencies, or audio frequencies, the answer seems clear to them - RESONANCE to break up a crystal.  A wide variety of either magic RF or audio frequencies are generated in an attempt to attack the crystals directly.  But that is the wrong answer electrochemically.  Nice guess though - seems logical enough to a radio or audio guy. 

Since I have an RF background, I would have made the same knee-jerk conclusion had I not studied failure modes in LFP first, and dabbled a bit with agm PCL issues pointing me in the right *electrochemical* direction of passivation layers and secondary reactions. 

The wide contrast between the Pulsetech electrochemical study, from a valid source, and those from later products from engineers that seemed to have more of a radio / audio background, rather than electrochemical background, convinced me to try the Pulsetech.  So far so good.

 Again though - in these days of anonymous internet banter, one must decide for themselves.  And not get disappointed if it won't turn a dumpster-dive battery into gold.