[Bell Historians] Restorations etc

[Richard Offen]

Most definitely!

 

  _____  

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Higson
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June 2009 9:50 PM
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Restorations etc

 






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 <mailto:rodbick at Nenr5sThPCde0yRgPdZTTl6M8Efn9sJd99RNsaL3LsKzYtsF61RjawZQmNi3KQuae4NQ_JyJ5AnbvHtrnaFdIQ.yahoo.invalid>  Bickerton 

To: bellhistorians@ <mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com> 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@ <mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians@
<mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of David Cawley
Sent: 24 June 2009 01:06
To: bellhistorians@ <mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.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



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/f785d2d7/attachment.html>