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).
Extract from a letter from Peto & Radford regarding battery design and a comparison with the Exide battery for a 40/50 model.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 38\5\ Scan232 | |
| Date | 26th July 1922 | |
| X3398 Extract from letter received from PETO & RADFORD, 50, Grosvenor Gardens, London, S.W.1. 26th July, 1922. X.3398. Your letter is very interesting. I did not know you were going to write a report of your visit to our Works if I had, I should have shown you many more ways where we exercise care in the manufacture, how a sample is taken of each batch of raw material and passed in the laboratory before the bulk can be used, and how rigid the inspection of each operation is and how ruthless the rejection. I think a battery built of some of our rejected parts would be a better job than some firms turn out! Your report should be very interesting. With regard to the question of the BD.{Mr Berend}11 battery on the 40/50, I am sorry Mr. Royce looks on this as a larger battery. It is not really meant to be a bigger capacity battery, but rather an improvement on your present battery. Your present Exide has 11 plates per cell, so has ours, and the area of the plates is the same in each case. Our positive is a little thicker to withstand the overcharging and to give it a longer life and avoid the shedding of the paste which you get at present and there is a decent amount of acid in the cell reducing the necessity of topping up so often and the separators are thicker and stronger and double ribbed. These factors make the battery a little bit larger (but not much) and as you are not tied to room this does not matter and it makes it fractionally heavier, but look at the advantages you are getting and at a lower price into the bargain. Contd. | ||