Wikipedia AA battery article accuracy

[hyperslug]

Not sure if this belongs here, but it's primarily a battery question. From wikipedia's article on AA:

Single-use (ie. non-rechargeable) lithium batteries are also available for high demand devices such as digital cameras, where their high cost is offset by longer running time between battery changes. As of 2008, the only 1.5 V lithium AA called "Ultimate Lithium"[1] is manufactured by Energizer[2], although AA-sized batteries with different nominal voltages are available from others. These should only be used in devices rated for the higher voltage, but they offer litle[sic] advantage, having a capacity no better than rechargeable AA batteries.

Is it true lithium's generally have a capacity equal to rechargeable's? It seems too broad a statement to make. And there might be other advantages of lithiums:

• low weight
• consistent discharge
• better cold weather performance
• longer shelf life
• leak resistance
• higher initial voltage

Should the article be amended? It is a wiki after all.

 

[Marduke]

I think the last line is in reference to 14500 cells, the type alluded to in the previous sentence. At least that is how it reads on (my) first glance.

 

[Mr Happy]

I think the last line is in reference to 14500 cells, the type alluded to in the previous sentence. At least that is how it reads on (my) first glance.

That's how it reads to me too, but I guess 14500's can give higher output in lights designed to take them and that would be a useful advantage regardless of the similar overall capacity.

 

[jerry i h]

...Should the article be amended?...

Ummm...yes. Please, be my guest :cool:.
I have tried, with good success, to 'correct' the articles on Luxeon and Maglite. I remember one knowledgeable person who put on the talk page: hey, the info is inadequate and obviously wrong; where are the flashaholics on this one?
What you quote is so wrong and muddled as to be totally incomprensible. Sorry, Marduke, the quote is so idiotic, that I cannot see how you came to your thought.

 

[baterija]

What I see is about 2900-3000mah hours stated as the capacity for the L91. So it's a little above the rated mah capacity of the highest semi-realistic claims for Nimh at 2700. Of course it also maintains higher voltage for most of the discharge.

Silverfox in the Alkaline Battery Shootout shows 4.511 W-h at .5 A draw.
The Sanyo 2700 at the same draw shows 3.118 W-h in the Shootout.

4.5 W-h vs 3.1 W-h seems like a pretty big difference. Let alone the other differences.

 

[Mr Happy]

But the L91 costs about $2.50 per use, whereas the NiMH costs about $0.25 per use, assuming $25 for a charger amortized over 100 charges. That's a pretty big difference too. After you buy 3 or 4 packs if L91s the NiMH would have paid for themselves.