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 Peto and Radford discussing a battery fault diagnosis and its history across multiple chassis.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 57\2\ Scan014 | |
| Date | 27th October 1927 | |
| COPY. PETO AND RADFORD 107A PIMLICO ROAD LONDON. S.W.1. Your Ref.- ROY {Sir Henry Royce} /JTS/HP29927. 27th October 1927. PHP/LP {Mr Lappin} /R.6295. Messrs. Rolls-Royce Ltd., Nightingale Road, DERBY. Dear Sirs, Reverting to your favour of the 29th ultimo, bearing the above reference which was in reply to our report dated 23rd idem, although we are now in respect of a laboratory report upon the battery in question, this fact does not altogether put us in the position of giving a concrete diagnosis of the cause of this component's frequent visits to the above address. Actually an extract from our Chemist's report states "We have very carefully examined and tested the 12-volt T.B.D. 7.E. returned by Messrs. Rolls-Royce Limited, and find this perfectly sound in every detail. The battery gives an output of upwards 50 ampere hours at the 10 hour rate even after standing on open circuit for six days". You will see therefore that as the battery was first put into service by Mr. F.E. Brooke of Birmingham on Chassis GAK-54 about three years ago and still gives more than its rated capacity on a discharge test, its performance is satisfactory particularly considering what a varied career it has had on three different cars. Quite frankly it has been our opinion throughout the sequence of our examinations, that the foundation of the recurrence of the trouble could be found not in the battery, but in the cars upon which it was used. We feel sure that you will appreciate our reluctance to express this opinion without confirmation from some other source and in point of fact our Chemist concludes his report by stating "I can only suggest that the electrical arrangements on the car are faulty and preclude a proper charge being given or a partial short on the wiring more or less discharging the battery". As already pointed out, the component has seen service on three cars, Chassis Nos.GAK-54, GNK-30 and GRK-26. CONTINUED. | ||