In rec.crafts.metalworking Ted Edwards wrote:
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.

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.

all? what all? the overcharge immunity? the fact that some manufacturer
will design in NiCads even if the cost is similar, to provide product
distinction?

"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.

shelf life. this was "common knowledge" some years ago, but never have
read anything very authoritive about it. are you saying a NiMH battery,
unused, will be as good a a NiCad after 5yrs on the shelf? what exactly
_are_ you saying? that you haven't run a test personally so do not believe
it? --Loren