[Bell Historians]Bearings was Moseley St Mary

Peter Trotman ptrotman at YGbpDmONYwC97yUt1Wm_EidrV2gMIYyawCVshMcfCNDMWQZCtzWarMqmhFAMFm3PAblk9H82gezAgK8K.yahoo.invalid
Thu May 22 16:56:55 BST 2008

That's exactly right. Also the internal diameter of rolling element
bearings used by the bellhangers/foundries and the diameter of the
matching gudgeon is probably significantly greater than the typical
plain bearing gudgeon.

Peter Trotman

On 5/22/08, Stephen Ivin <s.ivin at Ox9yUeqPBz2X0ujtRqkOIWfTEySvHfot6DNe8n7dByFjRd5mUZC_QehX_BADFp89X7TKbmL6lFFFhQGtABJx.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>  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.
>  Steve


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list