[Bell Historians] Moseley St Mary

Richard Offen richard.offen at 7zpfUt1BeoEXwhsoKMbH7ndwyB3mRDCLViHDSF0BPGs8FZDdIFGCKCmhQc7ivyHzwCY4lB3BnQxZMLWpMs2_V1YHtg.yahoo.invalid
Wed May 21 06:03:48 BST 2008

It’s a very long time since I did any engineering, but I seem to remember
that the dynamic load created by use of ball bearings is considerable
greater than that from plain bearings, which is why the diameter of gudgeons
on bells hung on ball bearings is usually significantly larger than for
those hung with plain bearings.   


Over the years there have been a number of gudgeon failures on bells where
locals have fitted ball bearings to original gudgeons that were manufactured
for use with plain bearings.


I’m sure some of our number who are current engineers will be able to
furnish a much more ‘scientific’ explanation than the above!





From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of George Dawson
Sent: Monday, 19 May 2008 11:01 PM
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Bell Historians] Moseley St Mary


If the gudgeons were safe enough with plain bearings, then why should they
not be with ball bearings?

 Clearly here there was a more substantial failure than b/b collapse.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1454 - Release Date: 19/05/2008
7:44 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1457 - Release Date: 20/05/2008
4:45 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20080521/cb241164/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list