Fw: Loose ends

[David Bryant]

More from Andrew Higson:

> Message date : Mar 15 2004, 12:04 PM
> From : "bellmaster" 
> To : "David Bryant" 
> Copy to : 
> Subject : Loose ends
> 
>From: "Nick Bowden" <nickwbowden at f...>
> 
> > From: "Andrew Wilby"
> >> -Any more queries or can we conclude the list 
> as definitive?
> >> 7. Reddish, St. Elisabeth's Lancs        
> 8. 12 cwt
> >
> > The front 6 were cast in 1897, but the back 2 
> were cast in 1891 weren't
> > they?
> >
> > Nick

Yes - I see now looking more carefully at the job book that it says front six. I read the Towcester chronicles and believed!

Thank you all for your kind comments - makes it worth while. I had done thespade work to do a RW article - but I think this has turned out better.

> C D
> Second, the ring of six at Tushingham which Mr 
> Higson now thinks should
> usurp Norton as the first Taylor true-harmonic 
> ring, is indeed good - or so
> I thought on both visits there. (The bells could 
> do with rehanging,
> though.)
> 
> Purely from a pedantic point of view, though - all of these are right, one of Norton's isn't (even though there are more harmonically tuned bells atNorton). Where else do you draw the line, if you need to? Leaping onto thefence of indecision, I let you judge which you want to be no.1!

Third, note how close to true-harmonic the 
> present fourth bell at
> Clungunford, Shropshire, was in 1895: nominal D 
> - 26, fundamental D - 46,
> hum D - 31, (tierce F +/- 0). I believe this was 
> a Taylor stock bell sold
> to Clungunford in that year to replace a cracked 
> one. Certainly it
> demonstrates that Taylors had got the shape of a 
> bell of this size, at
> least, about right already by then. If Andrew is 
> still sitting in his
> office twiddling his thumbs - joke - it would be 
> good to have the month in
> 1895 that this bell was cast. Certainly it 
> didn't benefit from the new
> tuning machine.
> 
> C D  
> 
Cast on November 18th 1894. I'm sure Chris remembers from our trip there that the profile of the bell was markedly unlike the usual profile of the time as the soundbow had a ridge on it in a most continental style. I concur that the octaves fell well into line although the tierce was well up. Clungunford is still the only place that has rejected a new bell for being too good. We had to cast a replacement with some lead added to "dumb it down"! The rejected bell got transportation to the antipodes.


Heavy bells: 

here's another:-

Victoria Cathedral, Gozo, cast 2003 by the Taylor foundry - with canons

> weight = 89-1-14
> diameter = 1.950m (76 3/4")
> 
> Hum = 98.4Hz (G + 7 cents)
> Fundamental = 196.8Hz (G + 7 cents)
> Tirece = 234.4Hz (Bflat + 10 cents)
> Quint = 297.3Hz (D + 22 cents)
> Nominal = 392.8Hz (G + 3 cents)
> 
Freeserve AnyTime - HALF PRICE for the first 3 months - Save £7.50 a month 
www.freeserve.com/anytime