What's the difference in these Motorola HT1000 batteries??

rdmahurin · Post by **rdmahurin** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 7:38 am

WPNN4037A

WPNN4013A

Both are rated at 2000 mAh. The WPNN4037A has all the safety approvals, but is it really any different than the WPNN4013?

Anyone had these apart, or have experience with the 4037 being more heat resistant?

Thanks in advance!

kmoose · Post by **kmoose** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:44 am

I have never had one apart, but I would say the difference is the I.S. rating on the WPNN4037A. They are, as you say, both 2000 mAh, and both are NiMH. I would say that they probably utilize the same cells, inside. But one is contstructed in a manner that gives it the FM Approval, and one is not. I would expect them each to function exactly the same way, outside of an FM environment.

rdmahurin · Post by **rdmahurin** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:13 am

I was wondering if there was an actual physical difference in the two, or if it was like the $6,000 toilet seat; Higher cost due to all the testing/certification paperwork, but the same exact product.

We had several failures recently with Power Products batteries, and decided to go with OEM Motorola battries from here out, but nobody seems to have them (the WPNN4037A) in stock, ready to ship.

kmoose · Post by **kmoose** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:28 am

I don't know for sure, but I would say the difference in price has to do with the I.S. rating. Have you tried Multiplier batteries? I don't have any personal opinion of them, but I know that they actually make some of the "OEM" batteries, for Motorola. They are pretty big, and you usually don't get that big by selling crap. Might be worth looking into.

rdmahurin · Post by **rdmahurin** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:22 pm

I found the WPNN4037A. Searched the net, and found at least a dozen places that listed it; None really carried it, but had one "just as good for much cheaper" (reminded me of those "motor oil is motor oil" commercials).

Had to go direct to Motorola to find it. $133 each, but if they hold up to the heat better it will be worth every dime.

Dkouz · Post by **Dkouz** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:44 am

rdmahurin wrote:...with the 4037 being more heat resistant?

I don't think the FM approval has anything to do with heat resistance. So, if you don't need to have an IS battery, don't pay the extra $ for it.

kc7gr · Post by **kc7gr** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:30 am

Dkouz wrote:
rdmahurin wrote:...with the 4037 being more heat resistant?
I don't think the FM approval has anything to do with heat resistance. So, if you don't need to have an IS battery, don't pay the extra $ for it.

You're absolutely correct on both counts. FM-approved batteries have nothing to do with heat resistance. They have everything to do with being certified not to generate enough energy to cause an explosion in explosive atmospheres.

If you're not operating your portables in situations like fuel-spill cleanups, mine-tunnel operations, or in the dusty area of grain elevators, you do not need to spend extra $$ on FM-approved (better known as 'intrinsically safe') batteries.

Keep the peace(es).

kmoose · Post by **kmoose** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:37 am

kc7gr wrote:
Dkouz wrote:
rdmahurin wrote:...with the 4037 being more heat resistant?
I don't think the FM approval has anything to do with heat resistance. So, if you don't need to have an IS battery, don't pay the extra $ for it.
You're absolutely correct on both counts. FM-approved batteries have nothing to do with heat resistance. They have everything to do with being certified not to generate enough energy to cause an explosion in explosive atmospheres.

If you're not operating your portables in situations like fuel-spill cleanups, mine-tunnel operations, or in the dusty area of grain elevators, you do not need to spend extra $$ on FM-approved (better known as 'intrinsically safe') batteries.

Keep the peace(es).

Actually, Bruce, that will be almost entirely up to the insurance carrier. Some carriers require ALL radios at a particular jobsite to be I.S., regardless of whether they are close to the actual hazards or not. I just had this discussion with my boss, about a week ago. He maintained that we did not need I.S. radios for an oil rig move, because "it's not like we are going to be working near the wellhead or anything." Well, the crew got to the job, and the oil company kicked them off of the premises, until they had I.S. radios, as their insurance carrier requires for ANYONE working at the site. (So, of course, I had to jump through all of the hoops, to get I.S. radios for the guys. And when I couldn't do it in the timely manner that my boss wanted, like RIGHT NOW, I was the dog.) *chuckles*

kc7gr · Post by **kc7gr** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:53 pm

kmoose wrote:
kc7gr wrote:
Dkouz wrote: I don't think the FM approval has anything to do with heat resistance. So, if you don't need to have an IS battery, don't pay the extra $ for it.
You're absolutely correct on both counts. FM-approved batteries have nothing to do with heat resistance. They have everything to do with being certified not to generate enough energy to cause an explosion in explosive atmospheres.

If you're not operating your portables in situations like fuel-spill cleanups, mine-tunnel operations, or in the dusty area of grain elevators, you do not need to spend extra $$ on FM-approved (better known as 'intrinsically safe') batteries.

Keep the peace(es).
Actually, Bruce, that will be almost entirely up to the insurance carrier. Some carriers require ALL radios at a particular jobsite to be I.S., regardless of whether they are close to the actual hazards or not. I just had this discussion with my boss, about a week ago. He maintained that we did not need I.S. radios for an oil rig move...

Oh! Well, I sit corrected then. What you say does make a lot of sense. In fact, I kinda wonder now if Puget Sound Energy is using IS radios when they work around a gas line...

Anyway: The above being the case, be guided by what your insurance carrier for any given job requires.

ExKa|iBuR · Post by **ExKa|iBuR** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:59 pm

kc7gr wrote:[quote="Dkouz
If you're not operating your portables in situations like fuel-spill cleanups, mine-tunnel operations, or in the dusty area of grain elevators, you do not need to spend extra $$ on FM-approved (better known as 'intrinsically safe') batteries.

Keep the peace(es).

A company I used to do contracting work for operated a large grain silo that was exceedingly dusty...they gave us an HT600 to use while someone brought an FT-50 to use *whistles*...I guess that wasn't such a bright idea, eh?

-Mike

KE4NYVJR · Post by **KE4NYVJR** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:15 pm

For the money I still recommend HNN7143's or 7144's, the actual Moto battery. Thats all we carry for the jedi series and you're just getting a better battery, that FITS the radio properly. I see such garbage, hack, copies come in all of the time and they are crap. Unless the cutomer specifies not to, I usually end up replacing it with the REAL thing.

rdmahurin · Post by **rdmahurin** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:26 pm

I ended up getting the WPNN4037A batteries from Motorola direct. What a difference!!

Not only do they hold up to the heat, but the radio performance has actually improved a great deal. IMHO, they are worth every dime.

Thanks again for all of your help guys.

larryepage · Post by **larryepage** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:22 am

As has been discussed before, intrinsically safe batteries are almost always physically different from non-IS ones. They generally have some sort of current-limiting function. The result is that there is a pass transistor or other semiconductor controller in series with the battery output, making the voltage about half a volt lower than a standard battery. This can affect radio performance or low battery alarms.

Note also that IS ratings are generally issued for a radio and its accessories, and that the radio is IS only if used with specified batteries, antennas, and speaker mics.

IS radios can be a different story. There may be circuitry differences, or it may be a matter of labelling, recordkeeping, and controls on the repair process.

Regards,

RadioSouth · Post by **RadioSouth** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:14 am

Personally I'm a OEM fan on all Motorola accessories except Jedi series batteries. These seem to have a rapid self discharge rate, usually within two weeks they are flat. On the other hand Multiplier also fit well (not like some of the aftermarkets), kinda like that checkered pattern on the back of the battery to maintain a better grip, and months after charging I find they're still ready to go.

Photog · Post by **Photog** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 8:50 pm

rdmahurin wrote:WPNN4037A

WPNN4013A

Both are rated at 2000 mAh. The WPNN4037A has all the safety approvals, but is it really any different than the WPNN4013?

Anyone had these apart, or have experience with the 4037 being more heat resistant?

Thanks in advance!

According to 2004 Mototola Accessory and Battery Catalog:

WPNN4013A - 2000 mAh

WPNN4037A - 1900 mAh, instrinsically safe

What's the difference in these Motorola HT1000 batteries??

What's the difference in these Motorola HT1000 batteries??

Thanks for the reply

Re: What's the difference in these Motorola HT1000 batteries

Re: What's the difference in these Motorola HT1000 batteries

Re: What's the difference in these Motorola HT1000 batteries

Re: What's the difference in these Motorola HT1000 batteries

Re: What's the difference in these Motorola HT1000 batteries

...

Update

Re: What's the difference in these Motorola HT1000 batteries