------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C5D01E.212E5CD0 Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
At Lancaster Priory we get occasional non-ringing visitors from other parts
of the world (Poland, Czech Republic and elsewhere). If they want to know
how heavy our large, impressive looking tenor is the metric figure of 1553kg
means much more to them than the imperial equivalent. Also if we get visits
from schoolchildren the metric figure is easier to relate to what they are
taught in school, and to compare with the weight of other things. For
ringers, I agree entirely that 30cwt is more use, but that's because they
want to know how hard they are going to have to pull.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of David Bryant
Sent: 13 October 2005 09:10
To: bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Conversions
>For general purposes, to get an approximate figure, it helps to know that
>10cwt is 509kg. We have started to give metric as well as imperial
figures
>in the Lancashire Association Annual Report. This is useful in answering
>the question "How heavy is it?" as opposed to "How easy is it to ring?".
>Obviously as they are conversions if the imperial figure is an estimate,
>the
>metric equivalent won't be accurate to the exact kilogram.
How does that make it easier? It is pretty much universal for ringers to
think of bell weights in imperial units.
David
SPONSORED LINKS Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Ringing
Bell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "bellhistorians" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bellhistorians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C5D01E.212E5CD0 Content-Type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At=20
Lancaster Priory we get occasional non-ringing visitors from other par=
ts of=20
the world (Poland, Czech Republic and elsewhere). If they want to kno=
w how=20
heavy our large, impressive looking tenor is the metric figure of 1553kg me=
ans=20
much more to them than the imperial equivalent. Also if we get visits from schoolchildren =
the=20
metric figure is easier to relate to what they are taught in school, and to=
=20
compare with the weight of other things. For ringers, I agree entirel=
y=20
that 30cwt is more use, but that's because they want to know how hard they =
are=20
going to have to pull.
Peter
>For general purposes, to get an=20
approximate figure, it helps to know that
>10cwt is 509kg. We=
have=20
started to give metric as well as imperial figures
>in the Lancashi=
re=20
Association Annual Report. This is useful in answering
>the=20
question "How heavy is it?" as opposed to "How easy is it to=20
ring?".
>Obviously as they are conversions if the imperial figure i=
s an=20
estimate,
>the
>metric equivalent won't be accurate to the e=
xact=20
kilogram.
How does that make it easier? It is pretty much universa=
l for=20
ringers to
think of bell weights in imperial=20
units.
David
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C5D01E.212E5CD0--