From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Letter discussing a communication with Autocar and a postscript on battery performance and materials.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 54\1\ Scan065 | |
| Date | 2nd December 1925 guessed | |
| -5- Contd. Many thanks for the enclosed copy of the letter you sent to the Autocar. I quite appreciate that it would be most unreasonable to use this in the course of our present argument. I had seen Mr. Banister's letter. Yours faithfully, P.S.1. There is no doubt that in both our batteries, both the cranking internal resistance and the charging internal resistance are higher than in other batteries of similar size and weight, principally due to the fact that we use ebonite separators in addition to the wood. I have just heard of a case of a Lucas battery of smaller dimensions than our standard 40/50 which cranked the engine of a Morris car more actively. The conditions are, of course, quite different, and the single unit machine naturally requires more current because the speed ratio is different, so it would be practically impossible to use a battery with very much resistance. On the other hand, I have heard of such a battery failing almost immediately after being put into service by two cells shorting. So we have got to have the improved separation as has been so clear from our results in the past. All our experience with threaded rubber separators so far as it goes has shown these to have durability, to prevent shorting and yet to allow the battery to have a low resistance. I wish it were possible to try some of our otherwise standard batteries with threaded rubber separators, as it seems to me that there would be possibility of improvement. What is the position ? Contd. | ||