[Bell Historians] Jerusalem

[Carl Scott Zimmerman]

At 16:40 +0000 2010/04/03, Mike Chester wrote:
>I have been sent 6 files from the vicar that will be of quite some 
>interest to historians. They are architects drawings and give the 
>dimensions of the tubes in some detail, as well as that of the tower.
_____


If the Section C-C drawing is accurate, then it seems highly probable 
that Harrington's leather return springs have perished with age. 
Otherwise the hammers would all be leaning toward the center of the 
frame rather than toward the tubular bells.

Walter Durfee adapted Harrington's hammer suspension design to avoid 
such a problem, at least on all of the Durfee installations which I 
have seen in this country.  The lower hammer suspension beam is a bit 
more substantial; on the frame center side it carries slanted wooden 
pegs as rests for each hammer, and on the bell side it carries hammer 
return springs made of heavy wire.

Another Durfee adaptation is the addition of a 3/4-circle hoop of 
extremely heavy wire (or carefully bent 1/4" rod) which connects the 
two ends of each triangular action rocker and passes over the top of 
upper hammer suspension beam.  This hoop serves two purposes:  (1) it 
acts as a safety device in case the rocker suspension breaks, and (2) 
it carries a spherical lead weight, held in place by a setscrew, 
which can be moved along the hoop as an adjustable counterweight.

Based on photos that Alan Ellis sent me a couple of years ago, the 
above distinction would indicate that the Surrey BC tubular chime 
came from Harrington rather than from Durfee.  But I would be very 
interested to know whether any of these modifications show up in any 
of Harrington's later chimes.  If so, that would indicate a reverse 
transmission of technology!

Carl

P.S.  The Harrington advertisement which David Cawley posted later 
the same day shows a single-row arrangement for suspending the tubes. 
Has anyone seen such an arrangement in actual use? or was it perhaps 
artistic license?