lcoe wrote:

Don't put down NiCd's so quickly -- they have lower resistance than
NiMh so your flash may recharge faster, and they can be charged faster

This was true. It still is to a very small extent but there have been
major advances in NiMH technology even just in the last couple of years.

NiCd have their niche, but most people want NiMH.

Given what you say, why would they? I am serious, as I am puzzled. I
thought NiMH were far better, but I am beginning to wonder why.

1100mAh is about tops for AA NiCd's whereas NiMH AA's are now up to
about twice that. Twice as many pictures on your digital camera or
twice as many hours on your GPSR is a significant advantage. If you are
into caring for the environment, when they do die and go to the
landfill, NiMH does not contain any highly toxic Cadmium.

for most all applications, my guess is that they are. but have been
too expensive for low-end consumer products. they do self discharge
much faster than NiCads, bad for cell/cordless phones, both, they
take 1/10C overcharge indefinitely w/o damage, good for phones (read
this on a website).

This is all old/incorrect data. The self discharge rate is a *little*
higher than NiCd but not much any more. Prices have come way down.
Zellers (in Canada) is selling 1850mAh AA cells for Cdn$16 for a four
pack. Get a smart charger and don't worry about running them right down
before re-charging.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/ACCS/BATTS/BATTS.HTM
http://www.thomas-distributing.com/batteries.htm
http://www.buchmann.ca/

"new technology". oh, also, iirc new Nicad's have an indefinite
shelf life(?).

Are you refering to self discharge or just sitting out of use? If the
latter, I have seen no evidence of any superiority of NiCd over NiMH in
sealed cells.


lastly, i just bot a mid-priced Panasonice cordless 2.4gDSS which
uses Nicad's.

I don't know what a 2.4gDSS is but if it takes AA cells, try a set of
NiMH. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Ted