In general, voltage based battery
monitoring is "valid" under repeatable laboratory conditons (as has been mentioned in this thread already). When such monitoring is used with any variance in a charge/discharge cycle the error grows very large with large variations of current
, temperature, and time.
When there is a discharge current
or charge current present the voltage is relatively useless to base any conclusions regarding the state of charge of any battery
It is difficult enough to make accurate algorithms to indicate a battery state of charge (much less state of capacity, which is the most desirable piece of information to have) using accurate hardware
that can constantly monitor
Amps, Volts, temperature, and time with requisite simulataneity and continuity. It is just not possible to be accurate with voltage alone.
technology has been around for some time. Today, the concept
is just not worthy outside of expensively shielded and contained environments not found on cruising boats if for no other reason than the EMI and RFI would not meet any international standards.
Regardless, my own tests and experiments with some so-called de-sulphating pulsing devices have never shown ANY benefit over that of using appropriately set acceptance charging
voltage and/or a proper equalizing charge. Some appear to show some benefit when compared to single
set-point voltage chargers or three-step chargers that do not have a sufficiently high acceptance voltage and charge time. I predict that if Betrayfor's tests include a comparison with using valid 3-step charging parameters along with a comparison with using a proper equalization
method (when required) then the pulsing chargers evaluated will NOT be shown to outperform existing good quality 3-step chargers and certainly will not come close to Amp-hour law charging results.