[Bell Historians] Restorations etc

Wed Jun 24 14:49:37 BST 2009

Does that extend to learning new compositions?

Andrew Higson

Taylors Eayre and Smith Ltd

The Bellfoundry

Freehold Street

Loughborough

LE11 1AR

Telephone: 01509 212241 Fax: 01509 263305 Registered in England No.
1352309

________________________________

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Offen
Sent: 24 June 2009 14:47
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Restorations etc

It's just a shame I can't remember where I put things five minutes
ago!!!

R

________________________________

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John H Allen
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June 2009 9:41 PM
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Restorations etc

What a remarkable memory Richard!!

________________________________

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Offen
Sent: Wednesday 24 June 2009 14:39
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Restorations etc

Belmoline C was, I suspect, the "substance resembling chocolate"
referred to by Rod.   It was a readily available, grease that was
commonly recommended for all sorts of ball bearings ...I remember my
grandfather using it to grease the wheel bearings of his Humber Scepter
car.

R

________________________________

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Cawley
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June 2009 9:31 PM
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Restorations etc

As I said, the statement about "unsuitability" was a long standing one
of Taylors', and (if you believed it) a good sell for their type. It was
sometimes accompanied by deprecatory remarks about the accompanying
bedplates as "simple strips of metal", and the method of securing being
"mere coachscrews as opposed to proper bedscrew bolts". I've not seen
that sort of expression in Taylor reports for many years now.

An attractive feature of the M&S type as opposed to what JT advocated
was of course economy, and it enabled many "impossible" rings in
cash-strapped churches to continue in use at a cheaper price than JT or
G&J would have charged for theirs. 

I note what Rod said about pinching. I remember a Kent job done in the
early 70's which was a remarkably successful restoration. At a practice,
however, it was stated that one of the larger bells did not go as well
as the rest, and there was no visible reason for it. I ascended whilst
ringing was in progress and took the back cover off the housing, and
came down to find all smiles. Of course, the cover had to be replaced to
exclude dirt, but the following week I brought with me and fitted a
retaining washer half the thickness of that originally on the gudgeon,
and I understand that they've been happy ever since.

On lubricant for bells, do I remember in my youth that certain tower
cards advised the use of "Belmoline C" for ball bearings; and exactly
what was this substance, supposing it ever to have existed?

DLC

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Roderic Bickerton <mailto:rodbick at TKrsM1tRL75j3l8sUXYq9JdLKHVktMRcmwdZUAwNN0kKhmHnzCk61oRrCJ-fld30SEYE0yzvJ-MC-n_szX0_OQ.yahoo.invalid>  

	To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com 

	Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:31 AM

	Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Restorations etc

	I would challenge the statement of unsuitability of Whitechapel
single row
	races, they were excellent by design, but some suffered from 3
possible
	installation faults, the first being an unsuitable grease which
attacked the
	housing and turned into a substance resembling chocolate.
	The second was not allowing enough end float sometimes resulting
in
	pinching.
	The third was the design of the gudgion baring retaining washer,
which
	sometimes came loose, allowing the retaining screw to rub on the
housing
	causing contamination, which resulted in destruction of the
bearing.

	Over enthusiastic grease packing causes grease pumping losses,
and can cause
	the baring to fail. There needs to be enough space in the
bearing housing to
	allow the moving parts of the bearing to clear themselves of
grease, and run
	un encumbered by grease. This is well known.

	The bearings themselves were self aligning because the outer
raceway had a
	spherical outside which was housed in a spherical holder with a
plain
	outside. 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com> ]
	On Behalf Of David Cawley
	Sent: 24 June 2009 01:06
	To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com> 
	Subject: [Bell Historians] Restorations etc

	Rod's remarks about that good old M&S eight at Axminster
pre-restoration are
	very much to the point and in my opinion most appropriate. It is
a pity
	therefore to read of his recent disappointment. Rings like
Axminster was
	deserve to be cherished. It was always a pleasure to go there
and enjoy what
	Rod describes and then go to the marvellous heavy six (JT 1925)
at
	Axbridge.

	I also concur with his remarks about the pre-restoration ring at
King's
	Lynn. I rang there regularly in 1964-5 including a couple of
peals, and
	found them tough going after a while. They all had Mears single
race ball
	bearings of 1953, but the majority of the fittings were Mears
1887, with a
	frame partly of that date and partly of 1766. This frame remains
in the
	tower, the new frame beneath it. At the time of the recent
restoration it
	was suggested that the two 1887 trebles might be recast, being
vastly
	inferior to the other bells (including the 8th of 1893).
Taylors' recent
	tuning has made them far more acceptable, and the money was
better spent on
	recasting and enlarging the uncharacteristically horrible Dobson
9th. The
	L&P tenor is a superb bell even at only 28-1-4 in C# ; this
untuned bell
	retains its canons, which may account for some people finding it
slow
	turning or "ringing its weight". If the natural speed of the
bells is
	respected they can be appreciated as a fine ten and a good job
in every
	respect, notwithstanding the recent, well-aired and now resolved
problems,
	which were not of the Foundry's making. 

	As I say, the bells were previously on Mears 1953 single race
bearings. It
	used to be a "stock phrase" of Taylors that "these are of a
shafting type
	which we do not consider at all suitable for church bells." In
fact between
	about 1925 and the 1970's (when they went over to the
off-the-peg double-row
	housings) Mears & Stainbank fitted thousands of these units. The
substantial
	housings are beautifully engineered and I would hazard a guess
that a
	sizeable number continue to give good service to-day. The main
danger, as
	Rod says, is dirt, which may enter through over-greasing and
bursting the
	seals; another danger is of course lack of use, which may cause
spotting of
	the ball races. These are equally enemies of double-race
bearings. 

	DLC 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.12.90/2198 - Release Date:
06/23/09 17:54:00

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.90/2198 - Release Date:
06/23/09 17:54:00

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.12.90/2198 - Release Date:
06/23/09 17:54:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20090624/1ae19a1c/attachment.html>