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).
The testing and poor performance of Young accumulators compared to standard batteries.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 164\4\ img084 | |
| Date | 16th June 1932 | |
| X 6056 To PN.{Mr Northey} from Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Wst. c. SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} c. Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} Cx.{Major Len W. Cox - Advertising Manager} Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Wst.2/AD.16.6.32. YOUNG ACCUMULATORS. With reference to PN{Mr Northey}11/WT.13.16.32., we would say that we tested one of the latest Young accumulators last year and the results obtained were not very good but were considerably worse than the average result obtained with our standard Exide and Peto & Radford batteries. The battery we had, was made up in two 6-volt units using standard R.R. moulded ebonite cases. Each cell was fitted with the patent Wilderman separators of porous moulded ebonite. The separators were joined together round the positive plates with bitumen sealing compound thus making a pocket for each positive plate. The initial capacity tests were quite good and the units were put on tests for use under actual running conditions. After less than 12 months service both units failed due to the paste falling from the positive plates and being unable to settle on the bottom of the cell, therefore accumulating in the pockets forcing through the separators and so shorting the positive to the negative plates. The separators were of a soft spongy nature and allowed the active material to become clogged in them. It will be seen therefore that the condition and the life of these batteries is not as good as we obtain from our standard. We usually find that the battery people claim so much without being able to substantiate their performance claims over a long period. The battery may give a very good initial performance as this one did, but fail in its life test. We regularly get 5 and 6 years life from our standard batteries whereas this battery only gave one years life which is what one would expect from batteries such as the cheap Lucas etc. Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Wst. | ||