[Bell Historians] Moseley St Mary

[Peter Whisker]

After speaking to the 4 ringers from Staines who were there, the bell 
had been hadling very oddly during the Call Changes which preceded the 
incident. It had become very odd-struck and they were struggling to make 
it strike in the right place.

Investigating the bell afterwards, the side was missing from one of the 
bearing  housings, and one of the gudgeons was broken as well. It may be 
that the housing broke first and the gudgeon was rolling up and down the 
frame.

When Cambridge was called, once the Tenor started to dodge, it came off. 
She told me it was the loudest noise in a belfry she has every heard (in 
some decades of ringing) and dust came down on top of them.

The steeple-keeper (TC?) was still in the church and went up into the 
tower to investigate. He came down and said "It's not good, actually 
it's very bad...." or words to that effect.

I think that they may be looking to replace the ring with a lighter 8 in 
bell metal if they can. Not many people love the sound of ex-Sheffield 
steel bells.

Peter

Richard Offen wrote:
>
> 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!
>
>  
>
> Richard
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *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.
>
> George
>
> 
>
> 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/20080521/16dc466e/attachment.html>