Accuracy of weights
grblundell
GRBlundell at sOpprZw3FlKNyrCkkf_H3NRyii4pGVzwwJ3KRo0VkforRxyeYotN4HZ8UySlCNEeLsuypICmiuJ_TYP_Ig.yahoo.invalid
Sat Jul 15 09:14:53 BST 2006
I have a nasty feeling that I may have just posted this twice. But
replies to digests now seem to go off to a very strage address that
may not appear on the list. Apologies if I'm blessing you with this
message more often than it's worth (stands back and waits for
someone to point out that sending message once is more often than
it's worth....)
The most recent digest contains the following:
Posted by: "John Baldwin"
> Dove seems to have shown the tenor at Londonderry (G&J, 1929) as
> 32-0-6 ever since Edn2.
> However, Fred Dukes's Campanology in Ireland shows it as 32-0-5
> (p162).
and
Posted by: "Mike Chester"
> Whilst on the subject of doubtful data, can anyone confirm the
exact
> tenor weight at Atlanta? In a RW article is was given as 13-1-12,
but
> on the church/NAG websites it is given as 13-1-14.
- I won't go straight into whether enquiries at this level of
precision
are meaningful - we argued that one out some months back, and I
don't
think I convinced the list of my views. The list didn't convince me
of its views either.
But I will ask if we know (either specifically or in general terms)
how accurate weighing at foundries is. To use one of the above
queries
as an example, if (and I must emphasise that this is an entirely
hypothetical
question) Atlanta tenor had been put on the same set of scales
twice,
with no work or alteration made to the bell in between, would anyone
have
been surprised or upset if the weighing machine showed 13-1-12 the
first time
but 13-1-14 the second?
Cheers
Giles Blundell
More information about the Bell-historians
mailing list