[Bell Historians] Conservation gone wrong (was Whitechapel charges)

Bickerton, Roderic (SELEX GALILEO, UK) Roderic.Bickerton at tlz2YmdkSLPJ8xx2eoNEH7X_MOtGZnryPCY6XFEY4KNaM4DUfSCbi2QUmz6DXjufMMw9aNrfirR7eRzsiDWnMkQY5xYdxAFF.yahoo.invalid
Wed Mar 24 11:42:00 GMT 2010

Take up more space, how so?
They are not as wide as the necessary pit length, and not being deeply
ribbed allow very close spacing. They are the same height as equivalent
H sections.
Flexing is only a problem if they are subject to to much load.
That only gives rise to bad go in the form of suck and blow if one A
supports bearings from 2 bells, allowing interaction.

The worst flex I can remember seeing was the top frame at St Mary le
Towers, in the early 1980's. That's a low side.
I was not aware of any effect on go, but as I was measuring striking
accuracy, I was only ringing one bell at a time.
(As an aside they were so good as to need no adjustment, although it did
reveal the front bells to be very fast turning).

I have been up with a couple of 1/2 ton 6's on early A's and could not
see flexing.

Ribs don't stop flexing, they just reduce it at the expense of a wider
overall section.
They improve the strength to mass ratio.
In fact a solid section the same width as the ribbed section would be
much more rigid.
It would also be seriously expensive and extremely heavy.
"The castings in those A frames aren't very good - they have no ribs on
them so can flex too easily. Also take up a lot more space than H
David "

SELEX Galileo Ltd
Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL
A company registered in England & Wales.  Company no. 02426132
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list