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 from a battery manufacturer discussing modifications to reduce charging potential difference.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 54\5\ Scan062 | |
| Date | 11th February 1926 | |
| PRITCHETT & GOLD and E.P.S. COMPANY, LIMITED. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE BUSINESS OF PETO & RADFORD. MANUFACTURERS OF STORAGE BATTERIES. DIRECTORS SIR ARCHIBALD G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} GOLD. F.C. GRAHAM MENZIES. G.R.M. MINCHIN. WILLIAM PETO. C.R.D. PRITCHETT. T.W. PRITCHETT. Telephone No RAINHAM 34. Telegrams "PRITCHETT, DAGENHAM" CODES USED: BENTLEYS, OR A.B.C. 5TH EDITION. Please reply to Dagenham Dock, ROMFORD, ESSEX. LONDON OFFICE. 50, GROSVENOR GARDENS, VICTORIA, LONDON, S.W.1. Station: Dagenham Dock, (Mid. Rly. Tilbury Section) YOUR REFERENCE OUR REFERENCE KP/5. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} Fowler Clark Esq., Messrs. Rolls-Royce Ltd., Derby. 11th February, 1926. Dear Mr. Fowler Clark, I have your letter of the 6th inst. and note you are under the impression that we are able to reduce the charging P.D. by the adoption of .4 m/m ebonite and separators ribbed both sides. If you refer to my letter of the 2nd inst. you will see that I propose to effect the reduction in charging P.D. by adopting certain modifications in the method of producing the active material in our plates. My reference to the combination of .4 m/m ebonite and separators ribbed both sides as giving a superior performance at high discharge rates has no bearing whatever on the question of the charging P.D., but merely a proposition for the general improvement of the RR 11. I think this is as far as we can go at the moment and a charging P.D. of 16.2 on the battery probably represents an absolute minimum. Yours sincerely, W. Preston. | ||