wrote: > As to weights, here are a few which may be of interest.=20 > Belmont (Chime) 1860 > 45" 10.1.17 >=20 > Thornborough 1860/1 > 45" 11.3.23 >=20 I have always wondered why these two tenors of the same size and note=20 are so different in weight. Presumably the Thornborough bell has a=20 thicker profile and more metal in places which do not affect the pitch=20 of the bell. Nick ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- 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_0077_01C5406A.91E656B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I suppose it's the same as two bellmetal b= ells of=20 the same size and given note. At each end of the 45" scale in modern Taylor= =20 rings we have Prestwich (16-0-15 in F) and West Bromwich (17-1-15 in F). Th= e=20 former is 680Hz and the latter 707. If Belmont is at one end of the G= =20 range and Thornborough at the other, there might be some sort of explanatio= n,=20 assuming that both are 45", bearing in mind that steel bells do not conform= to=20 reasonable explanation.

I had an interesting email off line sugges= ting some=20 different weights for certain of the bells (the complete six in t= he=20 case of Belper); but neither Belmont nor Thornborough tenor was queried. Th= e=20 Thornborough weights are and diameters are taken in fact from primary= =20 sources - from the official correspondence and relevant invoice. I thi= nk I=20 got the Belmont weight and diameter from a RW article; I cannot rememb= er=20 whether a source was quoted.

I see we have an alternative now for Belmo= nt,=20 source not quoted, 10.3.3, which narrows the gap a little.

For the record, my other sources were: Eas= twood=20 (where the bells were 1858,1855, 1857, 1857, 1858, 1855) - = =20 CB Notts, also GAD quoting primary sources in the church=20 records.

Belper: Loughborough foundry file

Waddesdon: Cocks, CB Bucks=

CJP's remark about diameters is only too t= rue. I=20 think the Victorian inspectors left it to the nearest 1/2 or 1/4 inch - and= if=20 it was the local Vicar, it could have been more than this.. Mr North's reco= rded=20 diameters of St Mary de Castro bells differs from the present incumbent's=20 record, and I bet if CD came down he would find them different again - as=20 happened at a South Gloucestershire tower on one occasion, though we did no= t=20 come to blows. It was a worthwhile frame too.

DLC

----- Original Message -----

Fro= m:=20 = Nick=20 Bowden

To: bellhistorians@yahoogroups= .com=20

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 1:= 04=20 PM

Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Ste= el bell=20 dimensions versus bell metal

"David Cawley" <dave@d...> wrote: > As to weights, he= re are=20 a few which may be of interest. > Belmont (Chime) 1860 >=20 45" 10.1.17 > > Thornborough=20 1860/1 > 45" 11.3.23 > I have always wondered= why=20 these two tenors of the same size and note are so different in weight= .=20 Presumably the Thornborough bell has a thicker profile and more metal= in=20 places which do not affect the pitch of the=20 bell. Nick ------=_NextPart_000_0077_01C5406A.91E656B0--