[Bell Historians] Re: G&J Simpson rings

[Richard Offen]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, David Bryant <david at b...> 
wrote:
> > Surely when you're designing a new frame in a tower that size it
> > doesn't matter a stuff what the fittings are like as you can 
design
> > the frame around them. It wouldn't have made any difference if 
the
> > headstocks had been Gillett's web pattern, the new bearings meant
> > that the fixing hole centres would have exaclty fitted a Taylor 
frame
> > side, making the whole thing a piece of cake!
> 
> The Taylor type ones are better, though. The web section ones tend 
to be
> heavy and cumbersome and make the bells sluggish. 

That's not the point! None of this make any difference whatsoever 
to the design of the frame!

Generally, the webbed ones are actually lighter that 'box-section' 
stocks, what makes the bells sluggish is the lip to centre gudgeon 
line measurment, known as the 'hang'. 

I agree that Gillett's canon retaining stocks were dreadful - 
their 'pot' stocks are fitted to the fourth and fifth at Great Ness, 
here in Shropshire and they are absolute pigs to get up 'right' and 
very difficult to stike accurately in amongst the other four Gillett 
bells.

Gillett gudgeons were always fitted with a tapered spigot into the 
stock and bolted in the place that Taylors rivet theirs. One of the 
biggest problems with Gillett bells is that they used too sharp a 
taper, with the result that the gudgeons frequently fracture. The 
answer is to remoe the old gudgeons, ream out the stocks to a 
standard Morse taper and fit new gudgeons. 

R