------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C54354.CD314800 Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've written the following in response to Nick Davies' letter in this week'=
s RW. Before I send it, I'd be interested to hear any comments anyone may h=
ave on what I've written.
David
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------------
In his letter in this week's Ringing World, Nick Davies suggests that heavy=
tuning of new bells is a relatively recent practice, and that rings cast i=
n the earlier part of the twentieth century were not tuned so heavily. I ca=
nnot agree with this, as having inspected many bells of all ages it is my e=
xperience that many of the 'classic' rings of the earlier part of the C20 w=
ere in fact heavily cut on the tuning machine. For example, the bells of Yo=
rk Minster (cast in 1925 and widely regarded as one of Taylor's finest ring=
s) have all been heavily tuned, with the tenor being reduced from an as-cas=
t weight of 72-2-0 to its present 59-1-23 in the process. Likewise, the ext=
remely fine tenor bell at Exeter Cathedral (Taylor 1902) has been tuned thr=
oughout its inside.
Regarding Nick's point about earlier founders regarding a maiden bell as so=
mething of an achievement, surely this simply demonstrates that expectation=
s of tonal quality then were generally lower than they are now. It is notab=
le that even where earlier founders clearly understood true harmonic tuning=
(e.g. the Downham Market founders), they could often not acheve it simply =
because they did not have the technology available to tune the bells accura=
tely. They relied on them coming out of the mould more-or-less as required,=
and if they did not there was little they could do about it. This is why t=
heir bells display an inevitable variability as regards tonal quality, and =
even in complete rings (e.g. Poole?) the bells are often not all as good as=
their founder would no doubt have wished.
The reason why modern founders cast bells thick and tune them quite heavily=
must therefore be that this allows them to be sure that they will be able =
to cut the bell sufficiently to get the harmonics in tune, and it avoids th=
e wastage caused by castings coming out too flat for their intended purpose=
, which I believe was a problem Taylor's had in the very early years of tru=
e harmonic tuning. Where bells are cast thicker, there is much less chance =
of this problem occurring.
David ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C54354.CD314800 Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've written the following in response to =
Nick=20
Davies' letter in this week's RW. Before I send it, I'd be interested to he=
ar=20
any comments anyone may have on what I've written.
David
------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------------------------
In his letter in this week's Ringing World=
, Nick=20
Davies suggests that heavy tuning of new bells is a relatively recent pract=
ice,=20
and that rings cast in the earlier part of the twentieth century were not t=
uned=20
so heavily. I cannot agree with this, as having inspected many bells of all=
ages=20
it is my experience that many of the 'classic' rings of the earlier part of=
the=20
C20 were in fact heavily cut on the tuning machine. For example, the bells =
of=20
York Minster (cast in 1925 and widely regarded as one of Taylor's finest ri=
ngs)=20
have all been heavily tuned, with the tenor being reduced from an as-cast w=
eight=20
of 72-2-0 to its present 59-1-23 in the process. Likewise, the extremely fi=
ne=20
tenor bell at Exeter Cathedral (Taylor 1902) has been tuned throughout=
its=20
inside.
Regarding Nick's point about earlier found=
ers=20
regarding a maiden bell as something of an achievement, surely this simply=
=20
demonstrates that expectations of tonal quality then were generally lo=
wer=20
than they are now. It is notable that even where earlier founders clearly=20
understood true harmonic tuning (e.g. the Downham Market founders), they co=
uld=20
often not acheve it simply because they did not have the technology availab=
le to=20
tune the bells accurately. They relied on them coming out of the mould=20
more-or-less as required, and if they did not there was little they could d=
o=20
about it. This is why their bells display an inevitable variability as=
=20
regards tonal quality, and even in complete rings (e.g. Poole?) the bells a=
re=20
often not all as good as their founder would no doubt have wished.
The reason why modern founders cast bells =
thick and=20
tune them quite heavily must therefore be that this allows them to be =
sure=20
that they will be able to cut the bell sufficiently to get the harmonics in=
=20
tune, and it avoids the wastage caused by castings coming out too flat for =
their=20
intended purpose, which I believe was a problem Taylor's had in the very ea=
rly=20
years of true harmonic tuning. Where bells are cast thicker, there is much =
less=20
chance of this problem occurring.
David
------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C54354.CD314800--