CCT® test by Experts

Crystal Control Technology Test by Experts


(Trondheim, Norway,
(Materials and Chemistry, Electrochemistry and Ceramics)


SINTEF compared two identical lead-acid batteries using a standard battery charger. One battery was treated with a CCT device; the other was not. Samples of the battery plates of the two batteries were investigated by using a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and also by electrochemical methods.

Cyclic voltammetry was conducted on the new battery electrodes to understand the oxidizing and reducing mechanisms taking place on the electrode during charging and discharging. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) was conducted; the impedance spectra obtained showed reproducibility.


  • The electrodes: SEM analyses show that the CCT charged electrodes have a more homogeneous structure and composition than the standard charged electrodes, showing that the reaction sites for the electrode reactions are clearly more uniformly distributed than for the standard (untreated) charged electrodes. The CCT treatment contributes to increase the number of “reaction sites”, and make a more homogeneous electrode structure. The homogeneous structure is beneficial to overcome mass transfer limiting processes.
  • Shorter charge time: The time consumption for complete charging is lower; approximately 23%. This also shows that the electrical charge that is fed into the battery is used more efficiently, and that less electricity is consumed to charge the battery.
  • More capacity: The average time used for discharging the battery to voltages lower than 11.2V is also higher for the CCT charged battery (5.9 hours) compared to the standard battery (5 hours), an improvement of approximately 19%.
  • Higher voltage: Treated batteries reach a higher voltage after charge and subsequently the charging cycles are more uniform. The battery behaves more predictably through each charge cycle with less distribution/variation for the CCT treated battery compared to the untreated battery.
Charge / Discharge Comparison (Showing the battery voltage as a function of time).
 3.5b   3.5d
Figure 1. Charging curves for non-treated lead-acid batteries. Figure 2. Discharging curves for non-treated lead-acid batteries. Note the decreased run times and sudden drops in certain cases.
(Curve 5 is related to bad electric contact, and might be disregarded)
 3.5c   3.5e
Figure 3. Charging curves for CCT treated lead-acid batteries. Note the faster and more uniform charge times.
(Curve 5, the purple line, is related to bad electric contact, and should be disregarded)
Figure 4. Discharging curves for CCT treated lead-acid batteries. Note the greater, more uniform and predictable discharge durations.
(Curve 8, the blue line, is related to bad electric contact, and should be disregarded)


SEM Analysis of PB Negative Electrodes
 3.5f  3.5g
Micrograph 4. Non CCT-treated charged Pb-electrode, 10 cycles, x2000 Micrograph 6. CCT treated charged Pb-electrode, 10 cycles, x2000 


  • The dark places in the micrographs are PbSO4. The grey places on the standard charged electrodes were found to be a mixture of PbO2 and PbSO4. No sulphur was observed on the CCT treated electrodes.
  • For electrodes charged 4 times by standard charging, small amounts of agglomerates were observed; these greatly increased after the electrodes were charged 10 times.

  • Pb electrodes charged by standard charging had a less homogeneous structure than electrodes treated by CCT during charge.
  • Micrograph 4 contained oblong agglomerates of 0.5-1 µm. Agglomerates of this type were not observed on the CCT-treated electrodes.
  • Occurrence of agglomerates may indicate reduced reactivity of the electrode. The electrode structure is less homogenous after just 4 cycles with standard charging, than after 10 cycles with CCT charging.

SEM Analysis of PbO2 positive electrodes

 3.5h  3.5i
Micrograph 9. Non CCT-treated charged PbO2 electrode,4 cycles, x2000. Micrograph 13. CCT treated charged PbO2 electrode, 10 cycles, x2000


  • The CCT treated PbO2 electrodes have a more compact structure and lower porosity in the reaction layer compared to untreated electrodes. The electrodes were more porous after 10 cycles with standard charging, and the charging reactions seemed to be more inhomogeneous in lamellas compared to the CCT charged electrodes.
  • After just 4 charge cycles, standardly charged PbO2 electrodes already exhibited a structure which was quite similar to the CCT treated electrodes after 10 cycles.
  • Unlike standardly charged electrodes, no PbSO4 was observed for the CCT treated electrodes (after 10 charge cycles).

Test over the entire lifespan of the battery

MIRA Ltd, Birmingham, UK,
(Motor Institute Research Association)

Results from MIRA Ltd (Motor Institute Research Association), Birmingham, England, “Independent Verification Test of Puls-R 12V”, (marine branding of BEAT50).
The effect of CCT on battery lifespan and capacity was tested on ten 5Ah sealed lead-acid batteries (gel), of the same type and specification, in an accelerated Life Cycle Test program over 100 charge and discharge cycles in a custom built test rig.

The test protocol was:

  • The battery was charged to 14.6V
  • Once the battery was fully charged, a rest period of 20 minutes was allowed before discharging the battery to 10.5V through a load resistor.
  • Measurements of voltage and current were then recorded from each battery during the 100 cycles, via a data logger, to allow capacity calculations to be made, and a comparison to be carried out between treated and untreated batteries.
  • Five of the batteries were connected to the test rig with a CCT unit connected across the terminals (treated) and five were connected directly to the test rig (untreated).
  • Capacity was calculated by measuring the time in seconds taken to discharge the battery down to 10.5V.
  • To ensure a fair and consistent test, the time taken to discharge the battery on the first cycle was considered 100% and all other capacity measurements expressed as a percentage of this.
  • The end capacity (after 100 cycles) has also been expressed as a percentage of the start capacity.

The results

Figure 1     Figure 2
3.5.1  3.5.2

Figure 1 shows an example of the data used to calculate the change in capacity over 100 cycles. Data was collected from battery 1 (CCT treated) and 2 (untreated) which was used to profile a graph of the capacity against charge cycles. Samples were taken at every 5 cycle intervals. The capacity was calculated at each of these points and plotted in the graph. The curve shows the increased cycle life with CCT treatment.

Figure 2 shows an example of the data for the 100th cycle. The untreated battery took 966 seconds to discharge, while the treated battery took 1 742 seconds. The final discharge duration of the treated battery is equal to 66% of the initial capacity, and the duration of the untreated battery is equal to 34 % of the initial capacity.


  • Discharge At the 100th charge/discharge cycle, the untreated batteries took approximately 16 minutes to discharge, whereas the treated batteries took approximately 29 minutes. The final discharge duration of the treated batteries is equal to 66% of the initial capacity, and the duration of the untreated batteries is equal to 34% of the initial capacity. That gives approximately 94% longer usage – more capacity for the treated batteries.
  • Less charge needed Capacity difference versus current consumption. Treated batteries were equipped with BEAT50 that takes 0.3A to operate therefore these batteries receive 0.3Ah less direct charge, equating to 20% less received charge over 100 cycles, and still deliver 94% more capacity.
  • Increased lifespan Untreated batteries reached 65% rest capacity after approximately 41 cycles, the treated batteries after 100+ cycles. This shows an improvement of approximately 144%. Batteries are often scrapped when 65% rest capacity is reached.
  • Increased resistance against self discharge Measured over 100 cycles, treated batteries lose only 0.35% capacity per charge/discharge cycles, untreated batteries loses 0.85% capacity per cycle.
WaveTech Wave

© Copyright 2020 WaveTech