------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C53FB3.16059E50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable See the profiles of the old St Clement, Hastings, eight for evidence of thi= s in "Sussex Bells & Belfries". But, like tower bells, some are better than others. And - as CD's remarks a= bout Toller Whelme confirm - the way in which they are sounded gives marked= ly contrasting impressions. The Bassaleg ring (tenor 41") were not all bad = in my view when rung; but when chimed on the Ellacombe they sounded horribl= e. I am told that they sound dreadful hung as they are at Sheffield. I felt= that Waddesdon were no worse than some contemporary sixes I've rung on. Th= ornborough I rate as positively good (or did when I went there shortly afte= r their de-rusting, painting, rehanging and dedication). But they are the e= xception rather than the rule. The Moseley eight which really are poor soun= ded even worse (can you believe it?) on the erstwhile Ellacombe. Yet, these= same bells were much praised when first hung in Sheffield RC Church and he= lped sell vast numbers all over the world. I agree with CD's remarks about = profile; can't help thinking that the effects of oxidisation, neglect and = time play their part, possibly more markedly than in the case of bronze bel= ls. As to weights, here are a few which may be of interest.=20 Eastwood 1857 33 3/4" 4.3.16 37" 6.2.15 39 1/2" 8.1.2 42" 9.2.2 48" 12.2.0 51 1/2" 18.1.11 Belper 1860/61=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 28 7/8" 3.1.19 31" 4.0.11 34" 5.1.12 36" 5.3.26 40" 8.0.18 42" 8.1.26 Belmont (Chime) 1860 30" 4.0.14 33" 4.2.22 37" 6.3.14 38" 7.0.10 42" 9.0.23 45" 10.1.17 Waddesdon 1861/2 30 1/4" 32" 35 3/4" 37 1/2" 40" 45" Thornborough 1860/1 (--) 33" 5.0.15 36" 6.3.24 38" 8.0.7 43" 9.3.15 45" 11.3.23 Dimensions from various sources, all believed reliable. Should provide a wo= rthwhile comparison between each other as well as with conventional bells. DLC ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Susan & Christopher Dalton=20 To: bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com=20 Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Steel bell dimensions versus bell metal > Does anyone know what the difference in size would be between a steel=20 > bell and a normal bell of the same weight? Which would be larger? > Presumeably it will be determined by the differences in density. > > A steel bell is quite a bit lighter than a bell metal bell of the same > physical size. There's a chart which compares bells by various founders= and > dates in the appendices of Trevor Jennings' 'The Development of British > Bell Fittings' - it includes Naylor Vickers steel bells. I don't have a > copy to hand, but from memory the Bassaleg tenor, which weighed 7.25 cw= t, > was about the size of an 11 cwt bell metal bell. > > David > It is as much to do with the profile of the bell, I think, as with the different metal. The steel bells I have looked at closely have had very little if any swelling inside at the bottom, where you would expect a sound-bow. Again, it is the profile rather than the metal which gives mo= st steel bells such awful partial tones, with wildly sharp hums. James Harrison achieved a similar effect - very light bells for their note - wi= th bell metal. C D ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bellhistorians/ =20=20=20=20=20=20 b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: bellhistorians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com =20=20=20=20=20=20 c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service= .=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C53FB3.16059E50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
See the profiles of the old St Clement, Ha= stings,=20 eight for evidence of this in "Sussex Bells & Belfries".
 
But, like tower bells, some are better tha= n others.=20 And - as CD's remarks about Toller Whelme confirm - the way in which they a= re=20 sounded gives markedly contrasting impressions. The Bassaleg ring (tenor 41= ")=20 were not all bad in my view when rung; but when chimed on the=20 Ellacombe they sounded horrible. I am told that they sound dreadful hu= ng as=20 they are at Sheffield. I felt that Waddesdon were no worse than=20 some contemporary sixes I've rung on. Thornborough I rate as positivel= y=20 good (or did when I went there shortly after their de-rusting, painting,=20 rehanging and dedication). But they are the exception rather than the = rule.=20 The Moseley eight which really are poor sounded even worse (can you believe= it?)=20 on the erstwhile Ellacombe. Yet, these same bells were much praised when fi= rst=20 hung in Sheffield RC Church and helped sell vast numbers all over the= =20 world. I agree with CD's remarks about profile; can't help=20 thinking  that the effects of oxidisation, neglect and time play = their=20 part, possibly more markedly than in the case of bronze bells.<= /DIV>
 
As to weights, here are a few which may be= of=20 interest.
 
Eastwood 1857
33 3/4"  4.3.16
37"      &nb= sp;=20 6.2.15
39 1/2"   8.1.2
42"      &nb= sp;=20 9.2.2
48"      =20 12.2.0
51 1/2" 18.1.11
 
Belper=20 1860/61          =20
28 7/8"  3.1.19
31"      =20 4.0.11
34"      =20 5.1.12
36"      =20 5.3.26
40"      =20 8.0.18
42"      =20 8.1.26
 
Belmont (Chime) 1860
30"      =20 4.0.14
33"      =20 4.2.22
37"      =20 6.3.14
38"      =20 7.0.10
42"      =20 9.0.23
45"      10.1.17
 
Waddesdon 1861/2
30 1/4"
32"
35 3/4"
37 1/2"
40"
45"
 
Thornborough 1860/1
(--)
33"     5.0.15<= /DIV>
36"     6.3.24<= /DIV>
38"     8.0.7
43"     9.3.15<= /DIV>
45"   11.3.23
 
Dimensions from various sources, all belie= ved=20 reliable. Should provide a worthwhile comparison between each other as well= as=20 with conventional bells.
 
DLC
 
----- Original Message -----
Fro= m:=20 Susan=20 & Christopher Dalton
To: bellhistorians@yahoogroups= .com=20
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 7:48= =20 PM
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Ste= el bell=20 dimensions versus bell metal


> Does anyone know what the differen= ce in=20 size would be between a steel
> bell and a normal bell of the same= =20 weight? Which would be larger?
> Presumeably it will be determined = by=20 the differences in density.
>
> A steel bell is quite a bit=20 lighter than a bell metal bell of the same
> physical size. There's= a=20 chart which compares bells by various founders and
> dates in the=20 appendices of Trevor Jennings' 'The Development of British
> Bell=20 Fittings' - it includes Naylor Vickers steel bells. I don't have a
>= ;=20 copy to hand, but from memory the Bassaleg tenor, which weighed 7.25=20 cwt,
> was about the size of an 11 cwt bell metal bell.
>
= >=20 David
>
It is as much to do with the profile of the bell, I thin= k, as=20 with the
different metal.  The steel bells I have looked at close= ly=20 have had very
little if any swelling inside at the bottom, where you w= ould=20 expect a
sound-bow.  Again, it is the profile rather than the met= al=20 which gives most
steel bells such awful partial tones, with wildly sha= rp=20 hums.  James
Harrison achieved a similar effect - very light bell= s for=20 their note - with
bell metal.

C D
 ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C53FB3.16059E50--