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).
Discussions with Messrs. Lucas regarding fuse holders and a lengthened E.575 Dynamo.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\F\May1921\ Scan38 | |
| Date | 4th May 1921 | |
| R.R. 285A (100 T) (S.H. 798, 10-12-20) G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} 2947 -2- EFC2/T4.5.21: Contd. as regards making this standard. Messrs. Lucas did not take kindly to the R.R. fuse holder, but proposed a holder with a double bend in each metal terminal of the holder in such a way that the pressure on the fuse wire is independent of that on the clip. They considered this a better proposition than our own, but I pointed out to them that that did not apply owing to the fact that we intended to use copper wire and to carry, if possible, a number of ready loaded spares in the box. I believe Ry. has now written that we would prefer to use the R.R. type in future. Messrs. Lucas's objection was partly one of departing from standard. X4352 Lengthened E.575 Dynamo. X294 As reported in our EFC4/T21.4.21, Messrs. Lucas have latterly gone all out on the lengthened E.575 machine and they had this machine actually running on test during our visit. We took up with them the question as to whether they would be able to with this lengthened machine to obtain an output to our specification. The cutting-in speed is a little over 100 revs. earlier than the standard machine, but the rise of output after cutting in would appear from a curve-print of which they gave to us, not to be rapid enough to entirely comply with the details of our specification. I pointed out to them that to secure a performance equal to our specification in all respects, it would be difficult, even with this 1" longer machine, but they seem confident that they will be able to do it after a little experimenting with brush positions. The curve given to us is only intended to represent a preliminary stage of their experiments. I pointed out to them that this machine would be the only one we could immediately adopt without making some change in our system and for that reason there was some possibility of its adoption. The question was put to them as to why their particular form of control, with the complication of an extra conductor, was ever adopted and why it was that they did not work upon the more simple single field winding third brush control scheme. I suggested that there might be patents still extant which prevented them from using this scheme, but they gave me the impression that this was not the case, but that they had tried this type of control in the early days and found it wanting. | ||