<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16850" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As I said, the statement about "unsuitability" was
a long standing one of Taylors', and (if you believed it) a good sell for their
type. It was sometimes accompanied by deprecatory remarks about the
accompanying bedplates as "simple strips of metal", and the method of
securing being "mere coachscrews as opposed to proper bedscrew bolts". I've
not seen that sort of expression in Taylor reports for many years
now.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>An attractive feature of the M&S type as
opposed to what JT advocated was of course economy, and it enabled many
"impossible" rings in cash-strapped churches to continue in use at a
cheaper price than JT or G&J would have charged for theirs. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I note what Rod said about pinching. I remember a
Kent job done in the early 70's which was a remarkably successful restoration.
At a practice, however, it was stated that one of the larger bells did not go as
well as the rest, and there was no visible reason for it. I ascended whilst
ringing was in progress and took the back cover off the housing, and came down
to find all smiles. Of course, the cover had to be replaced to exclude
dirt, but the following week I brought with me and fitted a retaining
washer half the thickness of that originally on the gudgeon, and I
understand that they've been happy ever since.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On lubricant for bells, do I remember in my youth
that certain tower cards advised the use of "Belmoline C" for ball bearings; and
exactly what was this substance, supposing it ever to have existed?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>DLC</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rodbick@5Taa6wkzyqB9XbwMOfy1c7sNgAP9qetIOgKO7RByVbAe1XeQg0wYXx-8SArHlzJviV8KfAo5JHCRZwAeukTS8vXRVkQ.yahoo.invalid href="mailto:rodbick@nJ4-Gv0dRz-J3MHdaeP8TFAVNBmpOR78qkpvme3sK4TBXUxX7CvFG2EYwxNGBOSjXMB1V40yyVwvkJZpK3f1SA.yahoo.invalid">Roderic
Bickerton</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com
href="mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:31
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Bell Historians]
Restorations etc</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P>I would challenge the statement of unsuitability of Whitechapel single
row<BR>races, they were excellent by design, but some suffered from 3
possible<BR>installation faults, the first being an unsuitable grease which
attacked the<BR>housing and turned into a substance resembling
chocolate.<BR>The second was not allowing enough end float sometimes resulting
in<BR>pinching.<BR>The third was the design of the gudgion baring retaining
washer, which<BR>sometimes came loose, allowing the retaining screw to rub on
the housing<BR>causing contamination, which resulted in destruction of the
bearing.<BR><BR>Over enthusiastic grease packing causes grease pumping losses,
and can cause<BR>the baring to fail. There needs to be enough space in the
bearing housing to<BR>allow the moving parts of the bearing to clear
themselves of grease, and run<BR>un encumbered by grease. This is well
known.<BR><BR>The bearings themselves were self aligning because the outer
raceway had a<BR>spherical outside which was housed in a spherical holder with
a plain<BR>outside. <BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: <A
href="mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@<WBR>yahoogroups.<WBR>com</A>
[mailto:<A
href="mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@<WBR>yahoogroups.<WBR>com</A>]<BR>On
Behalf Of David Cawley<BR>Sent: 24 June 2009 01:06<BR>To: <A
href="mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@<WBR>yahoogroups.<WBR>com</A><BR>Subject:
[Bell Historians] Restorations etc<BR><BR>Rod's remarks about that good old
M&S eight at Axminster pre-restoration are<BR>very much to the point and
in my opinion most appropriate. It is a pity<BR>therefore to read of his
recent disappointment. Rings like Axminster was<BR>deserve to be cherished. It
was always a pleasure to go there and enjoy what<BR>Rod describes and then go
to the marvellous heavy six (JT 1925) at<BR>Axbridge.<BR><BR>I also concur
with his remarks about the pre-restoration ring at King's<BR>Lynn. I rang
there regularly in 1964-5 including a couple of peals, and<BR>found them tough
going after a while. They all had Mears single race ball<BR>bearings of 1953,
but the majority of the fittings were Mears 1887, with a<BR>frame partly of
that date and partly of 1766. This frame remains in the<BR>tower, the new
frame beneath it. At the time of the recent restoration it<BR>was suggested
that the two 1887 trebles might be recast, being vastly<BR>inferior to the
other bells (including the 8th of 1893). Taylors' recent<BR>tuning has made
them far more acceptable, and the money was better spent on<BR>recasting and
enlarging the uncharacteristicall<WBR>y horrible Dobson 9th. The<BR>L&P
tenor is a superb bell even at only 28-1-4 in C# ; this untuned
bell<BR>retains its canons, which may account for some people finding it
slow<BR>turning or "ringing its weight". If the natural speed of the bells
is<BR>respected they can be appreciated as a fine ten and a good job in
every<BR>respect, notwithstanding the recent, well-aired and now resolved
problems,<BR>which were not of the Foundry's making. <BR><BR>As I say, the
bells were previously on Mears 1953 single race bearings. It<BR>used to be a
"stock phrase" of Taylors that "these are of a shafting type<BR>which we do
not consider at all suitable for church bells." In fact between<BR>about 1925
and the 1970's (when they went over to the off-the-peg double-row<BR>housings)
Mears & Stainbank fitted thousands of these units. The
substantial<BR>housings are beautifully engineered and I would hazard a guess
that a<BR>sizeable number continue to give good service to-day. The main
danger, as<BR>Rod says, is dirt, which may enter through over-greasing and
bursting the<BR>seals; another danger is of course lack of use, which may
cause spotting of<BR>the ball races. These are equally enemies of double-race
bearings. <BR><BR>DLC <BR><BR></P></DIV><!--End group email --></BODY></HTML>