[Bell Historians] Mini rings

[Carl Scott Zimmerman]

In spite of the difficulties involved, I think that attempting to 
define mini rings as a category distinct from "conventional" rings is 
a useful exercise (pun intended).  In that regard, both John and 
David have made excellent points.  I would add two more - portability 
and materials.

The concept of historical records, so important from a tower 
viewpoint, would seem to have little applicability to a ring which is 
seldom active in one place for more than a day or two, because it was 
built for the purpose of giving demonstrations.

A flower pot can hardly be considered in the same category as a 
two-tonne tenor, and yet the same fundamental principles of hanging 
technology and ringing methodology apply to both.


_____
At 11:29 +0000 2010/01/28, John Harrison wrote:
>So you pay your money and take your choice.  Either use 'mini' for size, in
>which case there is a clear dividing line around 40lb, or go with the
>majority tendency to use mini-ring as a code for 'not a proper tower', in
>which case you have to forget about weight as a delineator.  You can't have
>both.
_____
At 14:10 +0000 2010/01/28, David Bagley wrote:
>How small does a bell have to be before it is no longer a bell?
_____