Correspondence concerning battery specifications and a discrepancy in cell height for 20HP and 40/50HP models.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 54\2\ Scan035 | |
| Date | 21th July 1924 | |
| X.4617. EFC. {E. Fowler Clarke - Electrical Engineer} from Wd. {Mr Wood / Mr Whitehead} c. to By. {R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} Wd {Mr Wood / Mr Whitehead} 11/NJ21.7.24. X.4642?. 20 HP. Exide Battery to P & R Pattern. Our specification 302. Your note EFC {E. Fowler Clarke - Electrical Engineer} 1/T14.7.24. &Specification EFC {E. Fowler Clarke - Electrical Engineer} 2/T11.7.24. X.4617. 40/50 HP. Battery - Our specification 301. Your note EFC {E. Fowler Clarke - Electrical Engineer} 1/T12.3.24 & Specification EFC {E. Fowler Clarke - Electrical Engineer} 1/T8.3.24. Herewith I send you copy of letter from Messrs. Peto & Radford with regard to the two specifications above quoted. I have communicated the gist of Peto & Radford's remarks to the Chloride Elec. Storage Co.Ltd. and await their reply. In the meantime, I think you will decide to look into the question of the height of cell for the 40/50 HP. battery. Clause 8a, your specification 301 (EFC {E. Fowler Clarke - Electrical Engineer} 1/T8.3.24). In said specification you give the approximate height of the cell as 8.3/32" and the absolute limit as 8.1/8"; whereas according to Peto & Radford's letter they are making the cells 8.9/16" high. Wd. {Mr Wood / Mr Whitehead} Ltr. attached. | ||
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).