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 to Joseph Lucas Ltd. concerning a discrepancy in a regulator's swamp to coil resistance ratio.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 166\2\ img226 | |
| Date | 9th December 1938 | |
| 6092 EXPERIMENTAL DEPARTMENT. Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/RC.{R. Childs}14/AH. 9th. December, 1938. Joseph Lucas Ltd., Great King Street, BIRMINGHAM. For the attention of Mr. Toulmin. Dear Sirs, In reply to your X/LGT/4 of November 29th. we have been thoroughly into this matter of the increased swamping resistance, and we are alarmed at the manner in which it has been dealt with. To commence with, we have dismantled and checked the original unit (LT1427) to have an increased swamping resistance. This was an LR{Mr Ellor}7 regulator modified by you in December 1937, when we were definitely given to understand that it had been fitted with a 3/1 ratio of swamp to coil resistance. We now find of course, that it has a 6/1 ratio, yet in our report to you on this unit, reference Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/RC.{R. Childs}8/JH.18.1.38. a report in which we made every effort to get the details of this new unit made clear, we definite-ly quoted the ratio as being 3/1, and it was allowed to pass unchallenged. Further, you acknowledged this report in your X/LGT/9 22.1.38. in which letter explicit reference is made to the ratio as being 3/1. Moreover in that letter, you state that two more units would be made up to the details given in that report, i.e. with a 3/1 ratio. Finally, in your X/LGT/9 28.1.38. you again referred to the ratio as being 3/1. Boiled down, this means that as late as 28.1.38. we were all expressing ourselves freely in terms of 3/1 ratio, when all the time you were fitting 6/1, that we were allowed to contin-ue under this wrong impression, and only learned the truth by accident. Cont'd.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} | ||