Fwd: Re: Re: [Cambridge-youths] Fwd: Report from the bells working party + agenda
susan binns
suebinns100 at yahoo.co.uk
Wed, 9 May 2007 21:28:49 +0100 (BST)
--0-1200691683-1178742529=:78835
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
FYI
Chris Johnson <cmpj@cam.ac.uk> wrote: From: "Chris Johnson" <cmpj@cam.ac.uk>
To: "susan binns" <suebinns100@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Re: [Cambridge-youths] Fwd: Report from the bells working party + agenda
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 18:23:36 +0100
Dear Sue,
May I first confirm my apologies for missing the EGM, which I cannot attend though I would much have wished to.
Secondly, I add my thanks and congratulations to the Working Party for doing a splendid job.
I rather agree with Jo Johnson in feeling a flat 6th or sharp second unnecessary for what would be a lighter ring.
I also agree with Claire's view that the crack should be monitored.
I was a bit surprised that Hugh Hunt is of the view that the tower, rather than bending, pivots rigidly, as it were, about the foundations. Accordingly, given the expressed view that all informed comment would be welcome, I have e-mailed the report to Clarke Walters and Brian Threlfall, both of whom know the bells well and also have a lot of relevant expertise. (So far, Brian's copy has bounced and attempts to phone him suggest that he may be away).
In addition to the desirability of reducing the tower sway - and the only practical way of doing of doing that, given the constraints of the tower is to reduce the weight of the bells - there are also a number of concerns about the present ring (bearings and other fittings, porosity of C18th bells hence risk of further cracking, draft in ringing room etc, that are well rehearsed in the report). This seems to me to represent a strong case at this time for the "new ring" approach of the Working Party, even though I will in many ways regret the loss of these characterful bells. There does not however seem to be much wrong with the frame apart from a little need for local stiffening. Is it possible and economic to keep the existing frame (duly stiffened) for new, lighter, bells? Alan Hughes would have a clear answer to that question.
Best wishes,
Chris
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your freeaccount today.
--0-1200691683-1178742529=:78835
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
FYI<BR><BR><B><I>Chris Johnson <cmpj@cam.ac.uk></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">From: "Chris Johnson" <cmpj@cam.ac.uk><BR>To: "susan binns" <suebinns100@yahoo.co.uk><BR>Subject: Re: Re: [Cambridge-youths] Fwd: Report from the bells working party + agenda<BR>Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 18:23:36 +0100<BR><BR> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Sue,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>May I first confirm my apologies for missing the EGM, which I cannot attend though I would much have wished to.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Secondly, I add my thanks and congratulations to the Working Party for doing a splendid job. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I rather agree with Jo Johnson in feeling a flat 6th or sharp second unnecessary for what would be a lighter ring.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I also agree with Claire's view that the crack should be monitored. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I was a bit surprised that Hugh Hunt is of the view that the tower, rather than bending, pivots rigidly, as it were, about the foundations. Accordingly, given the expressed view that all informed comment would be welcome, I have e-mailed the report to Clarke Walters and Brian Threlfall, both of whom know the bells well and also have a lot of relevant expertise. (So far, Brian's copy has bounced and attempts to phone him suggest that he may be away).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In addition to the desirability of reducing the tower sway - and the only practical way of doing of doing that, given the constraints of the tower is to reduce the weight of the bells - there are also a number of concerns about the present ring (bearings and other fittings, porosity of C18th bells hence risk of further cracking, draft in ringing
room etc, that are well rehearsed in the report). This seems to me to represent a strong case at this time for the "new ring" approach of the Working Party, even though I will in many ways regret the loss of these characterful bells. There does not however seem to be much wrong with the frame apart from a little need for local stiffening. Is it possible and economic to keep the existing frame (duly stiffened) for new, lighter, bells? Alan Hughes would have a clear answer to that question. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Best wishes,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chris</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, <a
href="http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html">sign up for your free
account today</a>.
--0-1200691683-1178742529=:78835--