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).
Letter from C.C. Wakefield & CO LTD disagreeing with a report on Motorine 'C' and Castrol 'XL' oil analysis.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\O\2January1926-March1926\ Scan170 | |
| Date | 10th March 1926 | |
| COPY. C.C. WAKEFIELD & CO. LTD., WAKEFIELD HOUSE, 30 - 32 CHEAPSIDE, LONDON E.C.2. 10th. March 1926. EAE/EC. Messrs. Rolls-Royce Ltd., Derby. Dear Sirs, For the attention of Mr. E.W. Hives. We thank you for the opportunity which you gave to the writer and his colleague Mr. Limb on Thursday last to discuss with you the report upon Motorine 'C' and Castrol 'XL'. We were very much impressed by the trouble to which Mr. Adams had gone to obtain results which would enable him to formulate his opinion upon the oils in question. The only comment we desire to make is that the conclusion drawn by him upon the amount of asphaltic matter produced by blowing the oil at an elevated temperature is not one which we should have made. You will remember that in the report it was stated that Motorine 'C' contained approximately 10% of fatty oil and Castrol XL. approximately 5%, and that after blowing Motorine 'C' produced 0.18% of sludge, and Castrol XL. 1.36%. Also that in view of the relatively large amount of sludge produced by the latter oil as compared with the former Prices' oil was in his opinion the better. Such an opinion might pass unchallenged were it not for the fact that the fatty oil content was not the same in each oil, and this fact appears to have been overlooked when the final conclusions were formulated. It is a fact that the fatty oil content does materially affect the oxidation value of an oil, and in fact the difference between the fatty oil content and the nature of the fatty oils present, in the two lubricants is sufficient to account for the difference in the amounts of asphalt produced by blowing. Therefore it follows that the conclusion arrived at is faulty, because all the evidence available has not been considered. We are therefore reluctantly compelled to state that we disagree with Mr. Adams' report. Yours faithfully, C.C. WAKEFIELD & CO LTD. E.A.EVANS - Chief Chemist. | ||