[Bell Historians] Riverside Carillon.

[Richard Offen]

Alan assured us last Sunday that he was talking about the old carillon:

 

“Perhaps I should have said the carillon of c1928.

 

AAJB”

 

So presumably his measurements were taken prior to the 1950s and 2000s remodeling of the instrument.

 

Richard

 

  _____  

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of matthewhigby at TwmtByK5-o5jx24-xpEVUz6hl7fPHtlfGRvUyz-F6SRxVagzDbjIeTYlZ2s-U5q2D6bh3J527X--_YSAiQ.yahoo.invalid
Sent: Sunday, 31 October 2010 3:22 PM
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Riverside Carillon.

 

  

I am now quite confused! Are we talking about the new or old Riverside 
bells? I was told that the front end bells of the Whitechapel 
replacements are somewhat bigger than the originals, bin both diameter 
and thickness. I also thought that carillon bells were numbered the 
other way round from ringing bells - i.e. the biggest being no 1.

Best wishes,

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Roderic Bickerton <rodbic at hp_gwsiVzutHiLf1Y7yBjvy1rojnFMvsPlYVycF_GjmPQVJNvG9YJ2trOi9WyF2pqswQG7ZpksM7B1p1.yahoo.invalid <mailto:rodbic%40ntlworld.com> >
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com <mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Sat, Oct 30, 2010 8:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Riverside Carillon.


That would only give a soundbow thickness of  9/16", the small carillon 
bells I have seen are very thick, well over 1" thick

----- Original Message -----
From: Dwhgodwin at zceEdgEGvkik8nms58oNkRXTcFlWpznwtqjNfhiGzcRgu-HgE_6csOjPpe2Ez1pqvWxUvGsw9JY.yahoo.invalid <mailto:Dwhgodwin%40aol.com> 
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com <mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Riverside Carillon.

Would 5 7/8" be the strike diameter at the thickest part of the sound 
bow? would your informant be able to check this?
DG

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Buswell <aaj.buswell at YD7SmlNr_ZgV31eitI6zxK8aaLqWg5HiG9f2NAuRo10Js0xDy1Gx6iB-lQL9wY2z3oshxyAKh0_EhRXNdsRptNAw0wk.yahoo.invalid <mailto:aaj.buswell%40btinternet.com> >
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com <mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:38
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Riverside Carillon.

 

That's precisely what I'm wanting to know. G&J says diameter is 5 7/8 
inches, actual outside measurement, as measured by my informant - 7 
inches. The former measurement being the inside.
 
AAJB.

----- Original Message -----
From: Roderic Bickerton
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com <mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Riverside Carillon.

 

Hoe very odd, Hoe on earth can you sensibly determine an inside diameter 
at the lip the shape being a curve?
sounds an implaudable explanation.

On 24 October 2010 15:46, alanaj8283 <aaj.buswell at YD7SmlNr_ZgV31eitI6zxK8aaLqWg5HiG9f2NAuRo10Js0xDy1Gx6iB-lQL9wY2z3oshxyAKh0_EhRXNdsRptNAw0wk.yahoo.invalid <mailto:aaj.buswell%40btinternet.com> > wrote:

 

My attention has been drawn to the fact that there may be two ways of 
measuring a bell's diameter. Bell No.7 of the G&J Riverside Carillon, 
weighing only 15lbs, has been measured as 7" (no typo error)on the 
outside (lip to lip)but in the G&J Tuning Books it is given as 5 7/8". 
The measurements have been checked by my informer and shows the smaller 
measurement to be that of the INSIDE of the bell. What of the other 
bells here, I wonder?

Is this the usual practice of Cyril or may be anyone else?

AAJB



           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20101031/be86480e/attachment.html>