[Bell Historians] Nominal or hum

Richard Offen richard.offen at w9QvRljU4MZOI36B4yrEDcARGuypyyxCSsLPIaM9nnejbctBGm4rIGrzog9rEuQi9Sr-W31932tPrp7uu5j64H2Vgds.yahoo.invalid
Tue Apr 15 09:26:20 BST 2008

I would suggest "4 x y" -(where y = hum note of bell) would be the least
confusing way of doing it.


Just out of interests, at what diameter do you swap from nominal to hum?





From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Higson
Sent: Tuesday, 15 April 2008 3:43 PM
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Bell Historians] Nominal or hum


John Baldwin and I have been discussing the best way to display the details
of the new carillon bells at the Minster in the Dove entry.


One thing we are unsure about is how best to show the pitch of the smallest
bells, this being because their pitch is more determined by the hum than the
nominal. In fact the nominals of these small bells are very weak and almost


In the Taylor records we show the hum for the smaller bells; would this
cause confusion or would it be better to put a hypothetical 4xhum note


We would welcome your comments.




Andrew Higson

Taylors Eayre and Smith Ltd

The Bellfoundry

Freehold Street


LE11 1AR

Telephone: 01509 212241 Fax: 01509 263305 Registered in England No. 1352309



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20080415/55e55c93/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list