8mm Forum: Bell and Howell take up slip

This is topic Bell and Howell take up slip in forum 16mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001254

Posted by Chris Bird (Member # 3839) on March 22, 2015, 08:46 AM:

The take up on my Bell and Howell 2692 seems to be slipping too much. It's ok on shorts, but anything from 1200' upwards, the take up is noticeably very loose on the reel. I see Maurice suggested flipping the take up belt over when another member had too TIGHT a take up. Would this work in my case? Should I try talcum powder on the belt? Or maybe the belt is worn out and needs to be replaced? What do you think? Many thanks in advance, Chris

Posted by Richard C Patchett (Member # 974) on March 22, 2015, 10:09 PM:

Greetings Chris
Under the belt on the spindle is there a black rubber ring ??
That wears out
Is The Cloth belt black on the inside and slick ??
You can reverse the belt inside to out
It might work
RC

Posted by Chris Bird (Member # 3839) on March 23, 2015, 01:27 AM:

Hi Richard, under the belt the take up spindle is shiny metal - no sign of a rubber ring, and no sign of a slick on the belt. I don't recall other B+H's I've had years ago having this black rubber ring either, I don't think. Inside the take up arm is a white plastic roller that goes on the other end of the cloth belt.

Posted by Paul Mason (Member # 4015) on March 23, 2015, 04:07 AM:

Chris,
My 642 and 8D644 do have the black rubber rings. I had the same trouble as you recently with the 642. Changing the cloth belt and the ring made no difference. The white plastic gears in take-up arm were OK. It seemed there was too much slip in the "clutch plate" at the end of the take-up spindle. I had it professionally repaired by Kevin Brown.

Posted by Chris Bird (Member # 3839) on March 23, 2015, 05:53 AM:

Oh no! Was it expensive? And I haven't come across Kevin before; do you have contact details for him? Is he near London? I don't really want to get into shipping the machine; I'd hoped it was a simple fix like just a new belt.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on March 23, 2015, 09:40 AM:

Details for Kevin Brown
http://www.cine-repairs.co.uk/

Posted by Chris Bird (Member # 3839) on March 23, 2015, 01:42 PM:

Hi, thanks very much, I've dropped Kevin a line. I didn't realise there was a clutch plate in the spindle; I thought the slipping belt did the necessary job. Fingers crossed I can find a solution without sending the heavy beast away, which I'm very loath to do.

Posted by Dave Groves (Member # 4685) on March 24, 2015, 09:18 AM:

Chris, If you have to get it repaired I can't recommend anyone more highly than Kevin Brown. When my B/H 1695 needed servicing, he went out of his way to drop it off at a station on his way to another customer in Essex, and handed me a jam jar with the bits in he had to replace!! May not be particularly cheap but he knows what he's doing.

Posted by Chris Bird (Member # 3839) on March 24, 2015, 09:34 AM:

Thanks Dave, if it needs professional attention I'll happily use him. Though it's a nightmare shopping those things, so heaven knows how I'll get it to him. One thought; a friend suggested I should use a metal take up spool, not the plastic one I've been using. I seem to recall someone mentioning something like this before; anyone have any thoughts? I'm still hoping it just might be a minor fix rather than a full blown professional service.

Posted by Paul Mason (Member # 4015) on March 24, 2015, 12:21 PM:

Chris,
I can't see how a metal spool would make a difference. I was using a 1600 ft metal take-up at the time of my 642 problem but you've nothing to lose trying. If you do need to ship your projector you need a big double-walled carton with room for blocks of expanded polystyrene underneath and all round the projector. I left the handle sticking out the top for the courier.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on March 24, 2015, 01:01 PM:

Not a good idea to leave the handle out the packing, Paul, it could easily be damaged.
I have seen examples of this.
Pack everything inside a box, and then pack that box inside another box. It's the only way.
I never now trust to any carrier, except myself. I travel by car every six months or so. That way, I know everything's all right.
Our projectors are too valuable to entrust to a carrier, however good their insurance details sound. Try and make a claim.....

Posted by Chris Bird (Member # 3839) on March 25, 2015, 03:05 AM:

I have to say I agree with you Maurice - I had a Lux get destroyed in the post a couple of years ago and it took months of negotiations with Parcel Force to get my money back - even though it was insured!

BUT - I just had a quick play with my machine again. I wanted to see what would happen if I gripped the spindle / belt tightly. The roller in the arm kept spinning, despite pressure, so I think it really must be a belt / take up spindle problem, not an arm mechanics problem. Maybe I just need a new belt, or to replace the rubber ring which is currently missing from the spindle. I'll ask Kevin about that.

Paul - the thinking about the metal spool was that it would put more weight on the belt compared to plastic, but I agree, there's not a lot of difference in it.

Posted by Paul Mason (Member # 4015) on March 25, 2015, 05:12 AM:

Maurice,
Well it worked for me on three occasions with the same carrier. Maybe I was lucky and driving to Kevin wasn't an option for me. I'm sure you're right to suggest two boxes one inside the other would be better with plenty of cushioning. I also agree that insurance is a poor substitute for a precious hard to replace projector. The number of carriers has expanded enormously in recent years and there are many "cowboys" out there.

Chris,
Against the heavier spool idea is the fact that you are having trouble with longer and heavier films so increased belt tension wouldn't help?

[ March 25, 2015, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: Paul Mason ]

Posted by Chris Bird (Member # 3839) on March 25, 2015, 04:30 PM:

Update: I've had two long talks with Kevin. A wonderful guy, thanks so much for the recommendation. After talking to him, I opened up the take up arm, and the pulley in the arm seems to have some non-original replacement for the black rubber belt. So I suspect that that's it! I can get a spare from Gordon Osbourne and hopefully fit it myself. He did also recommend trying a metal spool, and if the film is warped to try flopping the film over for take up, so that it takes up wound the 'wrong' way.

Then again, all this has made me think about obtaining a spare Bell and Howell. Kevin is offering me a completely refurbed TQ1 655, new worm gear, all serviced. Kevin's TQ1 is not cheap, but might be a sound long term investment without some of the 'surprises' I've had with my 2692. I used to use a pair of 655s when I was projectionist for my university film society, and loved them. Then again I may be shot if I allow another large and heavy machine to come home!

Posted by Chris Bird (Member # 3839) on March 26, 2015, 01:41 AM:

Sorry, new update: this morning I took the circlip and washer off to get at the suspected incorrect pulley in the arm (that connects to the canvas belt). I was wrong, it's definitely original as it's a very specific part - a circular covering with a hexagonal end to it that mates with the part underneath. No way that can't be original. So maybe Kevin's right that I've been running some warped films that aren't taking up correctly. I'll do tests with known, recent, good film, to confirm.

Still tempted by his refurbed 655 though....

Posted by Paul Mason (Member # 4015) on March 27, 2015, 04:09 AM:

Chris,
Yes I learned a lot from talking with Kevin. The 655Q sounds a very good bet, however it will be much heavier than your 2692 if that's a factor.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2