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).
Reliability and testing results of Dubilier and R.R. condensers.
Identifier | ExFiles\Box 34\1\ Scan243 | |
Date | 18th April 1921 | |
Wd.{Mr Wood/Mr Whitehead} from BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} c.c. Mr. c.c. EPC. c.c. Mr Brock. X.2512. X2512 CONDENSERS - RE RELIABILITY OF DUBILIER MAKE. Further to my memo BY6-P4421, on the above subject, I have now been able, as promised, to test 12 R.R.Condensers under exactly the same conditions as we previously tested the 12 Dubilier make. The results are practically identical:- (1) Out of 12 Dubiliers tested 4 failed. (2) Out of 12 R.R. tested 3 failed. From the foregoing, my previous position is confirmed, namely, that one cannot depend upon the resonance test put forward by EPC, as supplying sufficient evidence to discriminate between good and bad Condensers, since as a matter of fact we have had practically no R.R. Condensers fail after handing over to test during the last six months, and yet 3 out of 12 condensers produced by R.R. failed on the special resonance test, which is evidently therefore too drastic a test to impose generally. EPC, is of the opinion that the resonance test, unless it breaks down a Condenser, will not create a weakness, that is to say, if condensers pass the resonance test they will not break down in service. This, however, is an assumption which, at the moment, I am not prepared to accept as correct, since, if EPC's deduction is wrong, and we were to test all our condensers this way and it was possible that an inherent weakness was created, but not discovered, then most probably we would have an epidemic of condensers failing due to the test itself, and therefore I do not propose to impose it as a required test until I know more about it. In view of the foregoing therefore, the only marked distinction which I can point to between the R.R. condenser and the Dubilier is the fact that out of 36 delivered which had been tested at Faraday House, 3 failed when put through our standard routine test, and this is too large a proportion for one to feel happy about, especially in view of the fact that we do not have similar failures of our own product. The only explanation I can give of the Dubiliers failing on our standard test is the one previously put forward, namely, that sufficient care is not taken to exclude dust from contd. | ||