[Bell Historians] RSJ stocks
Carl S Zimmerman
csz_stl at s...
Sun May 23 22:41:16 BST 2004
I'm somewhat confused by two recent messages on this subject. The
confusions may be connected, so I'm connecting them here...
At 13:23 +0000 2004/05/23, Richard Offen wrote:
>--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, David Bryant wrote:
> > > I think W&B stocks were always upright, I think some, by others,
>> > were laid flat?
> > I've never seen any laid flat, by anybody.
>Nor me. They would twist and distort horribly with the motion of
Why? Surely the rotational torque between the center of a headstock
and its ends is dependent only on the geometry of the hanging and the
weight of the bell (assuming that bell and gudgeons are solidly
affixed at their respective places). If British RSJs have similar
proportions to American I-beams, then one standing with its center
web upright will carry a greater static load than the same one laid
flat. But that has nothing at all to do with the torsional loading
involved in a swinging bell.
At 17:46 -0700 2004/05/23, CHRIS PICKFORD wrote:
>4. Bowell's very serviceable RSJ stocks are invariably I section,
>with plate gudgeons bolted to the underside.
>5. Bond's girder stocks, on the other hand, are H section with the
>gudgeons fixed in the underside of the channel
What's the difference between an I section "laid flat" and an H
section? (See above.)
More information about the Bell-historians