[Bell Historians] Re: Historical differences between long-standing bell foundries?

Roderic Bickerton rodbic at zdL2K-z_0-mHXoU_pyNJynQx1oyMeBQ81s8TbE3-nhns4ip70taJaudJhk0R251KhAi26-5U2uvgKA.yahoo.invalid
Fri Apr 27 13:50:36 BST 2012

I thought I heard a roomer this company put the 
cost up so much as to cause HM to give up on 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hayden Charles" <hcharles at bxnpNopA-btky5pF9MQmTuiH5dYWqZeoG00_EK3Zjt6LE69jYfltVjVG3ZET3KpbeGtJTBn4CkYzJso0.yahoo.invalid>
To: <bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Re: Historical 
differences between long-standing bell 

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


Yahoo! Groups Links


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list