[Bell Historians] SG/WI - was Tuning forks

Carl S Zimmerman csz_stl at st09r4luYK4-DGNnV_ex_d2vGvuxEn0HpQBzT1bDpa5xDQ49mRbCuXaePhm7Sqz4Hcu4rOe2vbqVO4A.yahoo.invalid
Wed Apr 19 06:11:49 BST 2006

David Bryant wrote:
>It had a heavy counterweight because the bells were rung up and down twice a
>week. It therefore rested on the bell too much. The present clapper doesn't
>have a counterweight and doesn't suffer from this problem. Consequently, it
>sounds much better.

Would you please explain this in more detail?  It seems 
counter-intuitive to me; I would have expected that a counterweight 
would cause the clapper ball to rest more lightly on the bell.



More information about the Bell-historians mailing list