[Bell Historians] Canon removal and faculties

Anne Willis zen16073 at ...
Wed Nov 2 16:59:05 GMT 2005

-----Original Message-----
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Roderic Bickerton
Sent: 02 November 2005 16:38
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Canon removal and faculties

Are we accepting that our hangers are not able to compensate a mix of bells
without and with cannons so that they all ring in a similar manner and
clapper properly? That I doubt.

Cannons are nothing more than a bit of dead mass at the top of the bell, so
all other things being equal, the bells with and without cannons need to end
up with mass and moment of inertial above the crown equal, (in proportion
to the bell mass.)
Similar logic says that the ringing gear, principally the headstock needs to
have as little mass as practical on bells with cannons if those without are
not to need heavy compensation, and the whole ring be slowed down.

"All other things being equal" assumes that basics like crown baring line
and crown clapper pin offsets have also been set with proper progression
around the ring.

Dare I venture to suggest that although not technically difficult, extra
cost would be involved in carefully sorting a mixed ring out, and that is
why it dose not usually get done.

When we re-hung Holy Trinity, Bradford on Avon in 1998 we never considered
removing the canons from any of the three bells that have them. The 2nd,
6th and tenor are on Taylors' canon retaining headstocks (the tenor one is,
I believe, the largest ever made). It probably did cost a little more, but
I don't know how much. 



More information about the Bell-historians mailing list