[Bell Historians] Diagonal Frames

Roderic Bickerton rodbic at rgvaLO17SKRVHc40X85fJWRLpEmEToachpX0UtC3PzqAVQ-DEQPGG9w9nn9KdGFpKut7rRUESxzbww.yahoo.invalid
Sat Jan 8 10:44:30 GMT 2011

1, I can think of cases where decent sized 
louver openings and thick walls will allow a 
bigger frame base than an in line frame.
2,  no need to mine holes in the tower walls if 
the bell frame corners can rest in the louver 
opening sills.
3, beam ends resting in louver openings may be 
better ventilated and less liable to rot than if 
buried in tower walls, assuming louver design 
prevents direct water penetration
4, most towers are stiffer across the diagonal

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Chester" 
<mike at tnq_znX_dO5NaVUGU02stuiz14k5yQN4b3saeauOZjhmHxK5lXAJTBctlCZDSpjhfAfVz26uBHSC1rvFYoq7FfhrpqxaTKU.yahoo.invalid>
To: <bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:32 AM
Subject: [Bell Historians] Diagonal Frames

> Can I be really thick?  (Again!)
> Why put frames in diagonally - it seems to me 
> that space would be wasted in comparison to a 
> frame that is set in line with the 4 walls of 
> the tower.  Is it simply to move the thrust of 
> the bells into a different, perhaps stonger 
> for the tower, plane?
> Mike


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list