charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm grateful to Carl for his support on th=
is, and=20
for expanding on the pros and cons of the alternatives.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I agree (Carl's final paragraph) about the=
use of=20
indicators to denote what weight we're talking about, EXCEPT that in "Dove"=
we=20
should always be dealing with the tuned or finished weight - without fittin=
gs.=20
So his suggestion could be useful where a range of weights are discussed - =
but=20
not in "Dove"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>CP</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>Fro=
m:</B>=20
<A title=3Dcsz_stl@s... href=3D"mailto:csz_stl@s...">Carl S=20
Zimmerman</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dbellhistorians@yahoogroups.com=20
href=3D"mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com">Bell Historians List</A> <=
/DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, October 01, 2002 4:=
02=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bell Historians] Dov=
e=20
inexactitudes</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><TT>As one who has been compiling technical data about tow=
er=20
bells for <BR>more than four decades (want an exact time period? it'll be=
=20
wrong <BR>tomorrow!), I concur enthusiastically with Chris Pickford's=20
proposal. <BR>Here's why:<BR><BR>Chris wrote:<BR>>In an ideal world, o=
ne=20
might give - sequentially - all recorded<BR>>weights for a given bell,=
=20
thereby making the status of each weight<BR>>crystal clear. But where=
=20
there's only one version this can't be<BR>>done. I would argue t=
hat=20
<7-1-16 (a neutral example where nobody<BR>>worries about whether o=
r not=20
the bell is over a ton!) is more<BR>>satisfactory than an arbitrary=20
approximate weight (is it 7 1/4, 7 or<BR>>6 3/4?) and avoids the=
risk=20
of people re-submitting the exact weight<BR>>that they've "newly"=20
discovered.<BR><BR>In a compilation such as Dove's Guide or my own databa=
se of=20
carillons <BR>(and chimes) of the world, there are several different conc=
erns=20
which <BR>the compiler attempts to balance. The two which may be th=
e=20
most <BR>difficult to reconcile are the desire to be as informative as=20
<BR>possible and the necessity of presenting information in as compact a=
=20
<BR>style as possible. Yielding entirely to the first results in a=
=20
<BR>multi-page article about each installation, but takes so much space=20
<BR>(and reading time) that it is almost impossible to get a good overall=
=20
<BR>view of the field of interest. (The forest is obscured by the t=
ree=20
<BR>trunk in front of one's face.) Yielding entirely to the second=
=20
<BR>results in a densely-packed and difficult-to-decipher table of <BR>en=
coded=20
technical minutiae. (The near-sighted person can't see <BR>beyond t=
he=20
closest leaf to the surrounding forest.)<BR><BR>What made the original=20
(printed) Dove's Guide so valuable to <BR>generations of ringers and=20
campanologists were two things: First, he <BR>had found a format wh=
ich=20
presented useful information so as to be <BR>both readable and portable.&=
nbsp;=20
(Pocketable?) Second, he worked <BR>diligently to make that informa=
tion=20
as accurate as possible within <BR>the limitations of human error, histor=
ical=20
ambiguity, etc. &c.<BR><BR>It seems to me that the real point of the=
=20
present debate is how to <BR>retain the virtues of Dove's Guide while als=
o=20
being more informative <BR>about the meaning of one part of its content,=
=20
namely, the "given" <BR>tenor weight. (Let's not get into the argum=
ent=20
about what a county <BR>reference means; that's been done elsewhere!)&nbs=
p;=20
All participants in <BR>the debate have tacitly accepted that a single we=
ight=20
should continue <BR>to be presented (though one may hope for the existenc=
e of=20
an audit <BR>trail behind it). Thus the argument is over what that=
=20
weight should <BR>be.<BR><BR>I'm sure that we all understand the differen=
ces=20
in meaning of the <BR>traditional deliberate inexactitudes: "7 cwt" is le=
ss=20
exact than "7 <BR>1/2 cwt" which is less exact than "7-1-16". And w=
e=20
expect that the <BR>first two forms are estimates while the third is the=
=20
result of the <BR>bell being weighed, presumably by means of a scale that=
had=20
been <BR>properly calibrated by HM Standards Office (or whatever the prop=
er=20
<BR>name of the appropriate agency is).<BR><BR>But those three expression=
s=20
also have more strict meanings, thus:<BR>7 cwt =3D> this weight is kno=
wn or=20
estimated to the nearest hundredweight<BR>7 1/2 cwt =3D> this weight i=
s known=20
or estimated to the nearest integer <BR>multiple of 56 pounds (and possib=
ly=20
also to the nearest integer <BR>multiple of 28 pounds, although we can't =
be=20
certain of that, since no <BR>one writes "7 2/4 cwt")<BR>7 1/4 cwt =3D>=
; this=20
weight is known or estimated to the nearest integer <BR>multiple of 28=20
pounds<BR>7-1-16 =3D> this weight is known to the nearest pound<BR><BR=
>In the=20
past, it was generally assumed that over time one would <BR>progress from=
a=20
less exact to a more exact knowledge of the "true" <BR>weight of a bell.&=
nbsp;=20
That is, increased precision of measurement <BR>implied increased accurac=
y of=20
knowledge. But what started this <BR>debate was recognition of a=20
situation where that implication is <BR>false--a bell whose weight was kn=
own=20
to the nearest pound underwent <BR>weight-reduction surgery, leaving it a=
t a=20
weight which is currently <BR>unknown but certainly less than what was=20
previously measured.<BR><BR>Arguments over whether to present the previou=
s=20
exactly-known weight <BR>or the present inexactly-known weight reflect th=
e=20
debaters' personal <BR>preferences, but fail to address the real=20
problem. As has already <BR>been pointed out, using the previous ex=
act=20
weight is a lie, and using <BR>an inexact weight when an exact weight has=
been=20
previously reported <BR>can only cause confusion. Neither is=20
desirable.<BR><BR>Chris's proposal has the twin virtues of simplicity and=
=20
clarity. By <BR>adding a single character to the formerly-exact wei=
ght,=20
it is <BR>possible communicate this fact: "The weight of this bell =
was=20
<BR>formerly known exactly; it has since been reduced by an amount that <=
BR>is=20
unknown but certainly exceeds one pound." Carrying 25 words of=20
<BR>information in one character is an economy of communication that is=20
<BR>hard to beat! And if that one character could be made a hyperli=
nk to=20
<BR>the audit trail, so much the better. Even without that, there i=
s no=20
<BR>risk of confusion with any of the other forms for reporting=20
weights.<BR><BR>I'll also take this opportunity to propose a further exte=
nsion=20
of <BR>Chris's idea. That is to include with any exact weight a=20
character <BR>which indicates how that weight was obtained (if known).&nb=
sp;=20
For <BR>example, "C" might indicate cast weight, "T" =3D tuned, "F" =3D w=
ith=20
<BR>fittings, etc. Not being in the business of weighing bells, I h=
ave=20
<BR>no idea how many such alternatives there might be, nor whether other=
=20
<BR>people would really find them useful. But this could be informa=
tive=20
<BR>without consuming much space.<BR><BR>-- <BR>=3DCarl Scott=20
Zimmerman=3D &=
nbsp; =20
Co-Webmaster: <A=20
href=3D"http://www.gcna.org/">http://www.gcna.org/</A><BR>Voicemail:=20
+1-314-361-5194=20
(home) =
=20
mailto:csz_stl@s...<BR>Saint Louis, Missouri, USA - 19t=
h c.=20
home of up to 33 bell foundries<BR></TT><BR><BR><TT>This=20
message was sent to you via the Bell Historians' Mailing List. To unsubsc=
ribe=20
from the list send an email to=20
bellhistorians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR><BR></TT><BR><BR><TT>Your u=
se of=20
Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A=20
href=3D"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</A>.</=
TT>=20
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>