[Bell Historians] Warners and true harmonic

David Bryant djb122 at y...
Sat Mar 9 01:56:29 GMT 2002

Aren't Pocklington a Warner 6 with 2 Taylor trebles?


oakcroft13 wrote:
> Chris Pickford:
> > Pocklington was an attempted true-harmonic job (1914).
> Ah well. I rang at Pocklington the other day, and I must admit I
> rather enjoyed them. I didn't get to look at the bells, but a notice
> in the tower implies, rather vaguely, that Warners retuned them in
> 1914 and that the bells were older.
> Unfortunately I only have a poor recording of one bell, the tenor,
> rung on the balance. Partials in cents from the nominal are: hum -
> 2441, prime -1008, tierce -877, quint -493. The tierce is very strong
> and the prime is quite weak. Therefore, compared with true harmonic,
> the hum is 44 cents flat, the prime a rather considerable 197 cents
> sharp. Despite this the tenor is a pleasant sounding bell, it is
> saved by the prime, though sharp, being quiet.
> I have been intending for a while to go back to record them all
> properly but have not yet had the chance.
> Bill H
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> This message was sent to you via the Bell Historians' Mailing List. To
> unsubscribe from the list send an email to
> bellhistorians-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list