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).
Internal report on battery connection failures, comparing Exide and Peto & Radford batteries, and proposing an improved fixing method.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 45\3\ Scan084 | |
| Date | 5th December 1928 | |
| EFC Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} Y4054 S/W. By.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} Copy to:- H Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} OWB12/GM/5.12.28. BATTERY CONNECTIONS. The following is an extract from a report of the Inspection Department following an electrical failure in chassis No. 26-CL, which was discovered to be due to looseness in one of the bridge piece connections in the battery - "The bridge pieces on Exide batteries are apt to work loose owing to the copper strips being thickly coated with lead and the brass holding down nut working through the lead. Might I suggest that in all cases where the battery is fitted in the frame out of sight, a Peto & Radford battery should be fitted as some of these batteries have solid connections between these cells. I have also just examined the batteries of our new 40/50 h.p. Trials Car Open and found these bridges loose, in fact I might safely add that I could go to most batteries fitted with similar bridge pieces and find I could tighten them". As you are aware, it is becoming increasingly common to fit the batteries in the frame, in which position they are always very inaccessible and it is therefore now of the utmost importance that these connections should not need repeated attention. Unless there is any other objection to it, the method adopted by Peto & Radford on some of their batteries, of permanently fixing these connections by burning, would appear to be the better. Is there any reason why all Peto & Radford and the Exide should not be made in the same way? OWB. | ||