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).
Proposing a new switchbox and discussing vibrator control for dynamos.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 60\3\ Scan188 | |
| Date | 28th February 1933 | |
| E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} } FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/WST. } X6044 R1/M28.2.33. C. to SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager}PN.{Mr Northey} CAR WORK ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. X3374. PROPOSED ENTIRELY NEW SWITCHBOX. I should not make a new one until we have a more definite programme. In reading many memos from E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} and HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/WST. I could not gather what system of dynamo control we were talking about (say on Peregrine). VIBRATOR CONTROL (CONSTANT VOLTAGE) In my own mind this is the only one worthy of thought until it fails, because it is not reliable, but I have the impression that the Bosch(made in England by C.A.V.) is excellent, and was to be adopted at the first possible moment. DYNAMO. Why? (1) Because the charging and running characteristics were what we want, and require the minimum of throught and attention for an always full but not excessively overcharged battery, (2) the dynamo heat and sparking can be much les, no 3rd narrow brush, and pole pieces as you wish. - Yet as usual we are harping on with a scheme that I have dismissed from my mind with the usual results that we are out-classed and out-of-date. Some one at Derby should have told me why we were not universally adopting vibrator control. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||