[Bell Historians] Re: Clapper failure information request

David Beacham david1.beacham at 27p9FqaNFpfQ23DvARiEPN-USum3ZtN2gC4U3tPMYaOKlAAw-U8kg2XBu_3qyM3Mk4yR9Nb-hxLvqGtJGb22mQ.yahoo.invalid
Fri Mar 17 15:11:26 GMT 2006

Some while ago I mentioned, in regard to Worcester Cathedral, that whilst we 
were waiting for E&S to manufacture a new SG tenor clapper, we had a 
previously broken E&S SG clapper arc-welded locally and put back in the 
bell. To our great surprise, it sounded great because it rebounded at least 
two inches after impact, which it had not done before it broke. That clapper 
survived the three or so weeks  that it was in use (including a QP) before 
the new SG clapper arrived. We still have it, but it has not been refitted 

The wooden-shafted clapper also has a similar rebound; possibly rather more. 
When rung on its own, the double-clappering can be heard, but I do not hear 
it when it is rung together with the others.

As to "chattering" clappers, I could cite two Worcestershire towers that 
underwent total restoration (everything new except the bells) where the 
outside sound is, for me, marred by such chatter. One is a Whitechapel job 
c.1985; the other is a Taylor's job c.1992; in both cases they have 
thick-stemmed SG clappers that have little rebound. I don't know if any 
modifications have been made to the design of these firms' clappers since 
then that would reduce improve the bounce and hence the sound. I do think it 
is great shame that quality of sound has been sacrificed for clapper life. 
E&S "profiled" clappers are, however, free of this problem


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bickerton, Roderic K (SELEX) (UK)" <roderic.bickerton at C-dorqNU-rURPwQPn00ZMReA1ZdwiW_-DmM6060Im3j0Mjza0gPz4KAAPAVzop_JfM1mVR_4rnZu_-4nyULFScdAnqV3.yahoo.invalid>
To: <bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Re: Clapper failure information request

> When the bell is rung normally the clapper hits it even harder. it is not 
> just falling under gravity but is being flung against the bell.
> The important difference about clocking is the clapper can be held against 
> the bell.
> when a clapper turner is used the clapper is just as free to bounce as 
> during normal ringing.
> Clappers do not bounce significantly, or double clappering results, but 
> they do de-weight immediately after striking, allowing the bell to 
> vibrate. Seen closely the clapper chatters against the bell or just lifts 
> clear before settling back.
> I invented and use a striking meter to correct odd struck bells.
> I spend a fair amount of time next to bells as they ring so I get a lot of 
> opportunity to observe and to some extent measure clapper speed.
> To add to the other debate on clappers and materials I have observed that 
> bells capered so that the clapper bounce is edging toward excessive sound 
> much better than those where the clapper lands with almost no bounce or 
> chattering.
> I would be interested to know much bounce and chattering there is on that 
> wood shaft clapper.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Richard Offen
> Sent: 17 March 2006 09:22
> To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Bell Historians] Re: Clapper failure information request


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list