Fw: Crossover

David Bryant david at b...
Thu Mar 11 14:07:47 GMT 2004

>From Andrew Higson:

> Message date : Mar 11 2004, 01:52 PM
> From : "bellmaster" 
> To : "David Bryant" 
> Copy to : 
> Subject : Crossover
More stuff for your group to chew on!
"This raises a question which I have wondered about for some time - 
> since the principles seem to have been pretty much understood by the 
> late 1920's, and some work from that era is regarded as amongst 
> Taylor's finest, why is it that some later periods are less revered?  
> Is it that they were again experimenting, in some new way, or was 
> some of the knowledge temporarily lost?
> John "
Bill H - 

> * tuning of partials other than hum, prime and 
> nominal, mostly a matter of bell shape

I don't think so - there is no evidence in the tuning books that we were being clever with higher partials. PLT did odd things with bell sizes (PLT = pingy little trebles) and stretched tuning which gave his work a distinct character, then of course we run into the dark ages......

> * metal content, especially forced by tin 
> shortages at various times

Yes - the immediate post war stuff definitely suffered. I was amazed at howmuch clapper wear there was at Wakefield (1947) for instance when we inspected there as compared with the foundry which has hardly any wear at all. Must affect the tone too.

> * clappering, 

Sigh - big factor here. If only. On the occasions where we have been able to use WI of late the results are spectacularly better than sg. The bells atStourbridge for instance sound as a complete set - 1935 & 1999 and some others

> * tower acoustics.

Definitely - with the volume of jobs that were being turned out in that era, statistically you are bound to get a higher number and better quality of decent towers to put your bells in. Its not as if there are no peals of bells that we did then that aren't a bit dissapointing.

> There are a number of reasons why founders might 
> make changes. These 
> include:

> * Tierce tuning. Equal-tempered carillons need 
> equal-tempered tierces rather than the just tierces which Taylor t-h 
> originally used

Yes - I think I've said so already!

> * Economics. I guess, without being able to prove 
> it yet, that some 
> profiles take less mass of bronze for a given 
> note than those 
> originally devised.
> All speculation at this point.

It certainly is. Try 4'2 1/2" old shape - Swindon 22-0-9, new shape - Penzance 23-3-23. 
Freeserve AnyTime - HALF PRICE for the first 3 months - Save £7.50 a month 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list