[Bell Historians] Riverside Carillon.

[matthewhigby at m1bzr8QgCHVSQ7koJyETvIQ5WCV67Cb8qNq73JZjk2bDuT-6SMVexmEi-kO_skj64WAVpfbhp8Ppa9_lang.yahoo.invalid]

Yes, but what was he comparing it to??

M

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Offen <richard.offen at 9Lzod3zOCIfcMyswrxXRrFd7sbQk71WOAF7oqlCw0ZFm377wzmXObOj__3osz_hiLubMx3kMhWcq1J-g23wurh20j24.yahoo.invalid>
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 31, 2010 8:35 am
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Riverside Carillon.






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 opr3cxdPHiBE0ajr2JbZQ7pDmiT7o5hHh28tTTMXClN8rzNMU9vHhnqrOLQFqYHoAjwn5cSiEobKzCU.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 GDwUW3K5qG9EsQQ6ojeVVMjpS1W7yTdJdM3rmaTUoLjVG_hIBHtWXJYnCyKMTWgZO8_WWwDrV1UuEQ.yahoo.invalid>
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.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 r_18hbxG1lIV0ItRMdmZs3zQMJsoLysiwbm5iRMCbw3JST8lxqvlgoeonCjoszNQE8OOK3xaIaeDE2vQ.yahoo.invalid
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.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 doKBvQHOolL89BIAh5YUAaHaW-MI89cRcwao7NO7X8AtuAx33tQXEsx3JsCzZoQCF9NMOJKRuuCStp46AwkVKfk.yahoo.invalid>
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.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
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 doKBvQHOolL89BIAh5YUAaHaW-MI89cRcwao7NO7X8AtuAx33tQXEsx3JsCzZoQCF9NMOJKRuuCStp46AwkVKfk.yahoo.invalid> 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