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 box design, the use of an open tray versus a lidded box, and comparing moulded Dagenite lids to a large sheet metal one.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 164\4\ img072 | |
| Date | 1st February 1932 | |
| HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/WST. FROM DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} x6055. DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}2/M.1.2.32. X.605 X.613 Copy to - E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. & 25HP. BATTERIES AND BATTERY BOXES. Replying to your HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/WST7/MA5232, we think we must have blueprints of these batteries, as without them we cannot deal with the problem of holding the battery in the box, or ascertain whether there is sufficient room. We have no idea what projections there may be on the dagenite casing. Also reply to HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/WST4/MA5232, we do not wish to put a sheet metal lid{A. J. Lidsey} on the sheet metal box. The theory is that acid escaping from the battery and falling on to the metal box is washed away by water from the road, the box being intended to be an open tray. If it is closed in by a lid{A. J. Lidsey} the acid will be at liberty to work at the metal of the box undisturbed. As regards a lid{A. J. Lidsey} on the battery it is a choice between a moulded dagenite lid{A. J. Lidsey} over each battery, or no lid{A. J. Lidsey} at all. We think you would not like the latter. We ourselves should have thought that moulded lids would be cheaper and more convenient than the large sheet metal lid{A. J. Lidsey} covering the whole box, which you suggest. DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} | ||