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).
Technical critique of a transporter design, focusing on the collector gear and conductor bars.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 180\M6\ img071 | |
| Date | 5th July 1927 guessed | |
| (2) is that you have not. Has anyone else a really good design, and if so, have you studied how they meet the various diffi- culties, and their general scheme and detail, because I think the Royce Ltd. design a long way from what I should have expected: it is not a question of costs, because we must in any case achieve our object, and give satisfaction to our customers otherwise it will cost us still more in money or reputation. For instance I should have expected each end of the transporter to have been carried on a four wheel bogie: I cannot see how two wheeled ones can be right, at least when geared together. I feel sure also that one of such four wheeled bogies could have carried the collectors. This brings one to the collector gear which still seems mechanically poor, not so much in principle as in detail. For instance - (1) the pivot should have been as high as possible so that the mechanical condition would be the same when running in each direction, (2) each unit (phase) should be insulated in the non- moving parts i.e. arm, spring, swivels, forming a unit should be insulated as a unit upon a base. This would reduce the inertia of the contact arm and enable a water sheltered insulator to be used. If the moving swivels and pivots could not be relied upon to carry the current, flexibles could be used. This is somewhat like a brush holder spindle on a dynamo, but I understand the insula- tion would have to be proof against rain. This is fairly easily possible. (Who is responsible for the original and improved scheme which you created, and what is the best scheme of your competitors, so as to see how you compare for efficiency and cost?) Next we come to the conductor bars: one feels that these are too flexible sideways 1/192 but as your beam is continuous 1/96. I think a T. or L. might have been better, or one would have preferred 1 1/2 X 5/8; then it might be good to have uniform length of bar of two spans, and control each by the centre fixing, and allow expansion at each end, where it should be fish-plated and bonded. I should have consid- ered the holding up of these bars a very difficult problem, and the following ideas occur to me, but are in no way final. In passing, it might be worth while to have a special trans- former for this transporter, either to get continuous current (and therefore only one conductor) or a different A.I. voltage. | ||