Re: [photo-3d] Ni-MH for Viewers

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bill Costa wrote:
>     Computer pundit John Dvorak seems to think that Ni-MH batteries
>     are wonderful and that the companies that make them are
>     deliberately not pushing them because they are such a good deal:
> 
>         http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2408068,00.html
> 
>     I offer this article as a point of interest.  I personally have
>     had very little experience with this sort of battery as of yet.
> 

John Dvorak isn't exactly a great font of wisdom.  He makes his living
by being controversial.  Being factual or correct doesn't enter the
equation, although it's been known to happen from time to time.

The fact that a large corporation has a less than useful web site does
not mean that there is a conspiracy to hide a better product.  Neither
does the fact that the same large corporation doesn't know how to
promote a product.  The best way to hide a better product is not to
produce it.

The advocacy page he points to is full of battery folklore (NiCads
have memory), although they are correct that cadmium is very toxic.  I
suspect that the efforts by industry to eliminate cadmium from their
products (a reason that Kodak has recently given for eliminating some
photochemicals) will be the main reason for NiMH to succeed and NiCad
(really NiCd) to fade away.

By the way, I can't think of any consumer product that I own (other
than a flashlight) that uses standard batteries bigger than AA cells.
Anything that needs more power (e.g., laptops) tends to use custom
battery packs.  That's where the manufacturers try to tie you to their
products.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"