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 discussing the internal appearance and longevity of car batteries based on different care and charging conditions.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 54\1\ Scan061 | |
| Date | 2nd December 1925 | |
| X4677P EFC3/T. 2nd December, 1925. Mr. G.R.N. Minchin, 50, Grosvenor Gardens, London, S.W.1. Dear Mr. Minchin, Apart from faulty separation of the elements of the battery, what is the difference in internal appearance (upon dismantling) between a battery which has had a moderately short life (by overcharging) and a merry one, and one which has had considerably longer life with reasonable care? I may be wrong, but provided (1) The battery does not fail by imperfect separation. (2) The battery has been kept properly topped up. (3) The battery has never been allowed down in voltage. (4) Charges have been given to the battery not too infrequently. in all of which cases the plates would show some definite effect, what is there left as a difference, which can be recognised, between a long life and a short life? I mean, what is there to tell you that a battery has been overcharged? It seems to me that the battery which has been used carefully and lasted a long time, when ultimately taken to pieces, would show, at any rate on the positive plates, every symptom of overcharging. If there is a definite difference, I would like to know it, because it appears to me that if only the stuff would keep on the positive plates, and the battery were reasonably used, it would last indefinitely. | ||