[Bell Historians] Re: Historical differences between long-standing bell foundries?
Hayden Charles
hcharles at OYAlV1bC-YBbERVEuS1PFxG5-o3gmNe0VboceUxmvUhLx5fE9qBK-mIYj_YSm34DI3sAY7abq5NLWBye.yahoo.invalid
Fri Apr 27 09:05:24 BST 2012
Matthew wrote on 27/04/2012 07:35:
> The amount of labor that goes into each bell is remarkable. I wonder why more progressive casting techniques have not been employed?
>
> A very, very fascinating subject...
>
There was an article in the 'Ringing World' about the sharp second
produced by Hayward Mills for Southwark Cathedral (bell is dated 2005,
RW index suggests pp 589-592 but I don't have the copy to hand). Hayward
Mills designed the bell but the casting was produced by a Sheffield
foundry using a computer-driven sand-casting process. The design had
extra metal incorporated to allow tuning. The article claimed that the
bell was so close to the dimensions specified that the next attempt
might dispense with the extra metal. Taylor's continue to use
traditional methods since amalgamating with Hayward Mills so perhaps the
'modern' casting approach is not cost-effective.
Hayden Charles
More information about the Bell-historians
mailing list