[Bell Historians]Bearings was Moseley St Mary

[Richard Offen]

I knew there would be someone (or two) who could give a better explanation
than the one I cobbled together late at night!

 

Thanks chaps!

 

Whatever the explanation, the answer is fitting ball bearings to gudgeons
designed for plain bearings is a dangerous path to tread!

 

R

 

   _____  

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Peter Trotman
Sent: Thursday, 22 May 2008 11:57 PM
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians]Bearings was Moseley St Mary

 

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 <HYPERLINK
"mailto:s.ivin%40btinternet.com"s.ivin at btinternet.-com> 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

 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1461 - Release Date: 22/05/2008
4:44 PM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1461 - Release Date: 22/05/2008
4:44 PM
 
           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20080523/e18ae32d/attachment.html>