Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!rochester!PT!speech1.cs.cmu.edu!phd
From: phd@speech1.cs.cmu.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: NICADs
Message-ID: <1016@speech1.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 26-Aug-87 03:31:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: speech1.1016
Posted: Wed Aug 26 03:31:37 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Aug-87 09:08:34 EDT
References: <8708040222.AA14785@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <646@gec-mi-at.co.uk> <1619@sol.ARPA> <284@axis.fr>
Distribution: na
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, Trumpet Acoustics Research Center
Lines: 23
Keywords: How about some non-nicad back-ups?

In article <284@axis.fr> philip@axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes:
>	Put a second set of NICADS, (actually two sets, one for the
>	servos, and one for the radio), together with a small voltage
>	measuring circuit which would be responsible for switching in
>	the second set when the first failed. It would also have to
>	give some indication, since I would use much smaller capacity
>	cells for the backup.

If weight is a consideration, why not just use non-rechargeable batteries?
They have higher energy density, and since these are for "emergency" use
only, I don't see any need for these to be rechargeable. Plus, isn't it
easier to verify the health of throw away batteries? (i.e. would using
a second set of nicads just move the problem back a stage?)



-- 
Paul H. Dietz                                        ____          ____
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering        / oo \        <_<\\\
Carnegie Mellon University                        /|  \/  |\        \\ \\
--------------------------------------------     | | (  ) | |       | ||\\
"If God had meant for penguins to fly,             -->--<--        / / |\\\  /
he would have given them wings."            _________^__^_________/ / / \\\\-