<P><BR>--- In bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com, "David Bryant" <davidbryant@...> wrote:<BR>><BR>> > Was Liverpool Anglican Cathedral the first?<BR>> <BR>> I believe Liverpool was the first, and so far as I am aware it is the only<BR>> one (and indeed the only bell frame anywhere) to be made entirely of<BR>> concrete - other radial frames, such as Washington Cathedral, consist of<BR>> steel or iron framesides and joining plates on a concrete foundation.<BR></P>
<P><FONT color="#0000bf">Liverpool was indeed the first radial frame, the notion for the design being one of Douglas Hughes' and was designed in the 1930s, but not carried out until after WWII.</FONT></P>
<P>> Standard radial frames (in so far as there can be a standard, there being<BR>> so few of them) are of the lowside type in that the bearings are mounted on<BR>> the top members of the frameside units. In order to add another tier, it<BR>> would be necessary to replace these with H-type units so that a further<BR>> lowside tier could be constructed on top. </P>
<P><FONT color="#6000bf">Why do you need to have 'H' pattern framesides? There are other ways of builing up a second tier using structural steel - as can been seen in many towers with conventional bell frames (see flat sixth at St Chad's Shrewsbury for instance).</FONT></P>
<P>It would probably also be<BR>> necessary to brace the upper tier down to the floor of the walls in some<BR>> way. Whilst this might work, it wouldn't be a very elegant design and would<BR>> pose difficulties in getting a decent circle, thereby obviating one of the<BR>> main advantages of a radial frame. </P>
<P><FONT color="#6000bf">What about putting the wheel on the opposite side of the upper bell to the one below? Still maintains the perfect circle!</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color="#6000bf">The main advantage of a radial frame is not only the elegant rope circle, but also that it minimises the effect of the horizontal forces on the tower generated by the bells.</FONT></P>
<P>I suppose it might also be possible to<BR>> construct individual lowside metal frames next to or within the radial<BR>> frame, but again this would be a very messy solution. I believe that there<BR>> was consideration given to augmenting the bells at Washington cathedral to<BR>> 12 plus a flat 6th, involving completely dismantling the frame and enlarging<BR>> it (the joining plates would presumably all need to be replaced as the<BR>> angles would be wrong). I don't know whether this plan is still under<BR>> consideration - I believe we have at least one Washington ringer on this<BR>> list who will doubtless know.</P>
<P><FONT color="#6000bf">Yes, the plan is to reassemble the Washington frame with different angled spacer plates between the pits to facilitate the addition of two trebles (as far as I am aware Alan, there are no plans to change the concrete substructure to facilitate this). However the flat sixth and extra treble are to be hung in conventional frames inside the circle of the radial frame. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT color="#6000bf">Why do you consider this to be so messy David? The plans I saw looked very neat and workmanlike!</FONT><BR>> <BR>> Basically, radial frames are only a good idea if the bells are never likely<BR>> to be augmented - in practice this generally means that unless the ring is<BR>> of 12, and either has at least one semitone or is very light, a radial frame<BR>> may not be the best answer (unless empty pits are left), as it could<BR>> preclude or at least make very difficult any future augmentation.</P>
<P><FONT color="#6000bf">Provided there is enough space in the tower, it is no more difficult to change a radial frame than it is to redesign many conventional frames to accommodate extra bells.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color="#6000bf">Richard</FONT></P>
<P><BR></P>