[Bell Historians] Great Bells of Britain - COBH

Chris Pickford c.j.pickford.t21 at ZSl-mnF53NB1HSvT9UgU7KysFnishSV91p3ZkJLsiXnhetKtE0xyuEQboLHJZ141XZ5bSQJvYDArdZtcby9DnWGweHvgjQ.yahoo.invalid
Fri Nov 17 14:40:35 GMT 2006

We're getting there but, as David Cawley says (glad to have his input on this) the recorded / exact weights of these two semitones would be useful. I do have weights (but not notes) for the Taylor bells of 1916 over 20 cwt here in "my" list, and they are 67-2-22, 48-2-3, 35-1-15, 28-2-26, 24-2-6, 20-0-5 etc. To complete "my" list down to a ton, I'd be keen to have details for any other Eijsbouts additions of 1998 at the bottom end as well as the two suggested by David - unless, of course, the other semitones were part of the original instrument.

Richard Smith must be right about the rather crude weight conversion for the existing bass bell - but strange to quote it as 3629 kg (the conversion to 71-1-20 - 8000 lbs as he points out - was mine) when the exact weight is known. 

But I'm puzzled by the musical notes attributed by DLC which seem to imply (and it's unlikely) that there was a one and a half tone gap between the two largest bells in the 1916 carillon. Isn't it more likely that the new bells fills the gaps between whole tones - and would therefore be 48 and 46 in the 49-bell instrument (not 48 and 47). If so, then one would fit between the 48cwt and 67 cwt bells - guess 55 cwt - and the other would be smaller (say 40 cwt)

Any advances on this?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20061117/305c4444/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list