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).
Experiments to improve the performance and reduce noise of a Phantom Ignition Governor Relay.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 48\2\ Scan424 | |
| Date | 23th April 1926 | |
| To P. from Hs {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} /Sn. {Mr Sanderson} c.c. to E.J. c.c. to R.H. c.c. to W.R.W. c.c. to S.R.C. x8796 Hs {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} /Rn {Mr Robinson} 2/LG23.4.26. PHANTOM IGNITION GOVERNOR RELAY. X8685 X8796 Since leaving Le CanadelHenry Royce's French residence we have been working contin- uously in order to improve the performance of this unit. Our first experiment was to try out a magneto with 1 lb. friction only on the sleeve and a return spring. When fitted to a car, this magneto proved to be very noisy. At present the magneto with 3 lbs. sleeve friction is very near the limit of silence demanded by the Test Dept. With 1 lb. sleeve friction and a 3 lbs. return spring, the noise from the magneto is most pro- nounced at slow speeds. We should say that it is more than 50% more noisy than the present standard magneto. With regard to the reduction in the return spring over the relay. We do not think it is very economical to return this piston by means of the magneto retarding spring, because 50% of this springs' pull is lost in friction between the magneto and the relay when the spring is retarding the relay, and about 50% of the relays' power is dissipated in friction when it is advancing this spring i.e., work done by spring 50% less than if it was in relay - work caused by spring 50% greater than if it was in relay. While therefore we entirely agree with the return spring on the magneto we think that this should only be strong enough to deal with the magneto, the spring to retard the relay being in the relay. We have been making tests to get the most efficient contd :- | ||