WWT Shows CLICK TO: Join and Support Internet Horology Club 185™ IHC185™ Forums

• Check Out Our... •
• TWO Book Offer! •
Go
New Topic
Find-Or-Search
Notify
Tools
Reply to Post
  
Brass mainsprings "Click" to Login or Register 
<Guy Smith>
posted
I have a seth thomas thirty hour clock with brass mainsprings. I am trying to find brass replacement springs but I haven't located anyone who carries them. Does any one out there know where I might be able to find some?
 
posted
Guy,
A while ago, I was fairly well chastised on this or the green board for suggesting that someone replace brass mainsprings with springs made of steel. My reasoning for this is that brass is a very poor material for mainsprings. After about fifty years worth of winding and unwinding the brass becomes very brittle and prone to breaking. In the history of American clocks, brass mainsprings were used fairly early. The reason for brass mainsprings was that there was nothing better available. Most clocks in those days were weight driven. As metal technology evolved, (like 1840 or so) steel mainsprings were introduced into clocks because they were more dependable and because more energy could be stored in a steel spring vs. a brass spring. Clocks with steel springs ran longer and better. This change was a major landmark in clock fabrication. This puts your clock at 160 or so years old. (and the useful life of the mainsprings expired about a hundred years ago)
You will not find anyone that makes brass mainsprings. Your best bet is to splice the one you have. My experience is that most of the brass mainsprings have already been spliced once. Like a chain, that spring is only as good as the weakest point, which is not a good bet. I don’t know what your experience is, but mainspring failure usually results in bent arbors, missing wheel teeth, and the infamous black fingernail.
If you plan to wind the clock once, change the mainsprings. Keep the original springs as proof of the clock’s age. If you just want to look at it, keep the brass mainsprings.
All of the hype about originality from the purists has not changed my opinion.
Best Regards,
Dick
 
Posts: 311 | Location: Berthoud, Colorado USA | Registered: December 08, 2002
<Guy Smith>
posted
Dick,

Thanks for the information. I didn't suspect the clock had that kind of age. As for the mainsprings there is no evidece of a splice of any cracking. they just seem, well, sprung.

any ideas where I could get info about making new brass springs? I can't help it. I'm a purist.
 
posted
I agree with Dick, his summary is excellent,"but" using the lightest steel springs in the proper length and width seem to overpower the 30 hr. movement. The time side seems to be "banging" kind of hard, and the already rapid strike seems even faster and with a decent return spring on the count hook, still wants to continue striking. For this reason, I too, have tried to find brass. Not considering myself a purist, some lighter steel springs would be nice! Now, shall we talk about how much stronger .018 springs produced today, are stronger than those from the 1800's ? Fun, isn't it?
 
Posts: 44 | Location: Cincinnati, Ohio USA | Registered: August 09, 2005
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


©2002-2023 Internet Horology Club 185™ - Lindell V. Riddle President - All Rights Reserved Worldwide

Internet Horology Club 185™ is the "Family-Friendly" place for Watch and Clock Collectors