[Bell Historians]Bearings was Moseley St Mary

Stephen Ivin s.ivin at CSNQj6i7r-jn-XsqKKr9dd7xLqR9MBuHtdTP9-yQyQk0wai6mgnZ82L9ArYB_ap75ctepL7DUKf7ze9hLjKU6g.yahoo.invalid
Thu May 22 16:31:13 BST 2008

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!

I'm not a current engineer (or really a current anything!) but I think 
the argument was that gudgeons running on plain bearings are (usually) 
supported much closer to the point of exit from the headstock - probably 
within half an inch or less, whereas the point of support in a ball 
bearing, not always obvious from the outside of the housing, can be an 
inch or even more, increasing the bending moment considerably.



More information about the Bell-historians mailing list