Casey Wilson wrote:

"Chris W" wrote in message
That's like saying aluminum is far superior to steel. In reality it
depends on the situation.

No, your metaphor doesn't work. We are talking about batteries.

I think my analogy is just fine. There are times when aluminum fits the
application best and times when steel is a better choice. With batteries there
are times when rechargeable are handy to use and times when non rechargeable are
a better choice. I don't see how you can disagree with that when you consider
this situation? The battery in my watch went for almost 4 years before I had to
change it, would you use a rechargeable in that watch if you could? Of course
not, it would discharge its self faster than the watch discharged it. There is
room to disagree on where the line of when to use rechargeables vs non
rechargeables is, but the line does exist.

I think part of the trip planning check list should include checking
the spare (read emergency) radio. Particularly if it is an item you might
want to depend on in a critical situation.

If I was going on a long XC I probably would do that, but for short flights of
an hour or so I doubt many people would go to the bother, I wouldn't.


Stashing it somewhere for months
doesn't seem like a safe idea.
I plan on using mine every time I go flying. Like, listening to ATIS or
calling ground before cranking the engine. Seems to me that would save some
time on the Hobbs.

From the perspective of flying my own home built, I wouldn't be doing that.
However if you do and the battery life of alkaline is short enough that you need
to replace them every 2 or 3 trips then I can see using rechargeables. I don't
know how long they would last in that situation, I would check first.


My post was aimed at alkaline batteries. But since you mentioned them,
my personal experience with NiMH versus NiCad is pretty much the same. NiCad
batteries have not lived up to the heavy power drain of my camera. I don't
expect them to work any differently in a handheld Xceiver.
I used to use NiCad in my RC equipment. Same thing. Memory effect
aside, NiCads just have not performed as well as NiMH. Also, I've tossed a
lot of NiCad batteries that went kaput before NiMH went on the market. I'm
still using every NiMH I've ever bought. No, I take that back.... a thief
stole a camera bag along with eight batteries last month. I did replace
those.
Maybe my experience is enigmatic. Do what feels good for you. I don't
condemn you or NiCads.

I've never had any problems with NiCd when I was doing RC, One thing that is a
problem is using a battery pack with enough capacity. Generally a pack with
twice the capacity will last a lot more than twice as long because the current
drain is a lower percentage of the batteries ratting. Since NiMH batteries
normally have more capacity than a NiCd of the same size that may be why the
NiMH were working so much better for you. If you could use a larger NiCd
battery I think you would find they work about as well as the NiMH. I think
that designers of electronic equipment, in an effort to design as small as
possible, often use a battery that is too small for the load requirements, in a
case like that if you put NiMH batteries than generally have the higher capacity
for the same size battery you are going to see a big improvement because the
NiMH is sized more appropriately for the load. I am having that exact problem
with a cordless phone right now. It comes with a 850 mAh NiCd and it goes dead
every time you turn around. If you replace it with the alternate 1200 mAh NiMH
the battery life is very good. If I could fit a 1200 mAh NiCd in the phone I am
sure it would do just fine as long as the memory problem was managed.


--
Chris Woodhouse
Oklahoma City


"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania