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 H. M. Hobson, Ltd. regarding the tinning versus nickel plating process for tank units.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 44\3\ Scan133 | |
| Date | 18th December 1928 | |
| 79038 CONTRACTORS TO THE ADMIRALTY, WAR OFFICE, AIR MINISTRY AND TO THE DOMINION & FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. TELEPHONE: CHISWICK 4231 (4 LINES). TELEGRAMS: "ASSEMBLAGE, LONDON." PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO THE FIRM, NOT TO INDIVIDUALS. MANUFACTURERS OF Hobson K-S Petrol Telegage AND MOTOR ACCESSORIES. WORKS: LONDON AND WOLVERHAMPTON. H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} M.{Mr Moon / Mr Moore} HOBSON, LTD. 47-55, ACTON VALE, LONDON, W.3. 18th December 1928. OUR REF. TPS/MW YOUR REF. Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}2/LG. For the attention of W. A.{Mr Adams} Robotham, Esq., Messrs. Rolls-Royce, Ltd., Expl. Dept. Derby. Dear Sirs, In reply to your letter of the 17th inst., we have not experienced any difficulties due to corrosion of untinned tank units up to date, but we have no objection whatsoever to electrically tinning any future units for you. The original units which we sent you were electrically tinned, but we experienced some little delay over getting this done here, and subsequent units were dull nickel plated. Recently, however, as all the orders have been so urgently required, we had to omit the tinning process on the tank units, in order to get them off in the required time. We will, however, re-adopt this process for all future orders, and conclude that electrically tinning will be more satisfactory than nickel plating. | ||