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).
Battery failures and charging system characteristics on the New Phantom model.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 54\1\ Scan050 | |
| Date | 24th November 1925 guessed | |
| - 3 - Contd. come off New PhantomCodename for PHANTOM Is, and it is only in the case of the New PhantomCodename for PHANTOM I that the new charging characteristics are there. Though I will not go so far as to say that trouble will not exist in circumstances as they are or may be at present, having already agreed that the output may be too large, I do not see that you yet have any evidence suggestive that the batteries are being seriously spoilt by overcharging on the New PhantomCodename for PHANTOM I charging system. Again, I do not know just how many of the batteries to which you refer are batteries of the new type, which have been on the chassis now for some con- siderable time, but I suppose that a certain proportion are of the new type. That being the case, I would certainly like to have more definite information of failures of these new types of batteries, even on the previous types of chassis which were fitted with Lucas dynamos. I presume you are quite aware that there was a series of chassis with the old type engine which, though fitted with dynamos on the engine, were not R.R. dynamos, but Lucas. These were called by us the 'U' Series, the New PhantomCodename for PHANTOM I being called the 'V' Series. Though I have made a point all along of being notified of any known cases of failure of batteries, and particularly of the new type, I have at present no justification for lowering the output curve, because officially I have no evidence of cases of premature failure of these batteries. You will remember you yourself agreed that a P & R battery on one of the experimental New PhantomCodename for PHANTOM Is in France had lasted particularly well, and this in spite of the fact that it was charging all the time. That is the only battery I definitely know of, of the new type - Exide or P & R - which has come to the end of its life. I feel very sure that the general shape of the output curve as given must be the right thing, and that the shape of the curve in itself will not be responsible for any premature failures which may be experienced on the New PhantomCodename for PHANTOM I. Therefore, I am going to keep to this - so in fact we cannot do otherwise, except for minor variations, so long as we have the simple third brush control. Your proposal therefore for the 40/50 would amount to reducing this output curve proportionally on the vertical scale, so as to make its peak 8 amperes Contd. | ||