[Cambridge-youths] GSM bells, etc.
Barry Johnson
brmj99 at ntlworld.com
Sat, 12 May 2007 09:38:25 +0100
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C79479.49CC06D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear All
An attempt to gather my thoughts before the meeting. I believe the =
working party have put together a well-balanced report that accurately =
sums up the current situation. I also believe that the only decision we =
have to make now is whether, assuming that most of the cost will be met =
by generous benefactors, we should accept the gift of a new ring of =
bells.
A few years ago when we started these discussions I felt as many of you =
do rather attached to the bells. I don't have a very musical ear and =
appreciate clarity more than anything. I also quite like a physical =
challenge and to succeed in ringing bells that have defeated some =
ringers younger and stronger than me. If we accept the new bells I will =
never know whether I could have rung the tenor to a peal for my 60th =
birthday. However there are plenty of physical challenges elsewhere, =
and difficult bells do not strengthen local bands.
I do not like hearing the bells disparaged by either Cambridge ringers =
or those who do not ring here, and it is very disheartening to think =
that any ringer would be discouraged from ringing with us because of the =
bells' reputation. As the trend for lighter, easier and more musical =
rings elsewhere in the country continues, this situation will only get =
worse and the arguments about new bells will not go away.
The alternative to accepting a complete installation is to spend time =
and our own money over a number of years trying to improve the current =
ring. It should be possible to achieve some benefits incrementally, but =
I am very doubtful that we would make a great deal of difference or that =
the reputation of the bells would be much enhanced.
The handling of the bells will always be affected by tower sway and =
while I have considerable personal interest in whether improvements can =
be achieved by active or passive damping, the problems are currently too =
great and should not distract us from making a decision on new bells =
now. I do not think that the frame contributes much to the movement. =
If we decide to have a new frame as well as new bells it should be in =
order to enable the bells to swing in the optimum direction, to achieve =
the best rope circle, and possibly to save a lot of VAT.
Reorientating the bells would produce some benefit. Currently the worst =
effects are produced by the 10 and 11 swinging north-south, affecting =
them and the 1, 2, 3 & 7. We could for instance have all of 1-11 =
swinging east-west with only a slight increase in the current maximum =
amplitude in that direction (which is about half the N-S amplitude) but =
with an extremely low probability of all the bells interacting to give =
that result. The tenor on its own swinging north-south would result in =
about half the present maximum amplitude, and with no interaction with =
other bells its handling would be predictable.
A lighter ring would help as well. The movement seems to be roughly in =
proportion to the weight, and a say 15% reduction in the weight of each =
bell would reduce the movement by that amount. The physical effect on =
the ringer would be reduced by a further 15% and there would also be a =
reduction in the normal effort of ringing the bell to changes. I think =
that a reduction of this order is worthwhile.
The biggest unknown is the effect that a new ring would have on the =
sound. I dislike some hummy 20th century rings with prominent =
harmonics. They sound nice enough but are difficult to strike well and =
are therefore unsatisfying to ring. I believe that founders are now =
prepared to adjust their profiles to give their customers what they want =
and I would have to trust others to decide what that should be. =
Fortunately the acoustics of the tower are currently good, and with =
expert advice should remain that way.
For these reasons I intend to support the proposals of the working =
party. Remember that there are good reasons not to look a gift horse in =
the mouth.
Best wishes to all
Barry
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C79479.49CC06D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1141" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear All</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>An attempt to gather my thoughts before =
the=20
meeting. I believe the working party have put together a =
well-balanced=20
report that accurately sums up the current situation. I also =
believe that=20
the only decision we have to make now is whether, assuming that =
most of the=20
cost will be met by generous benefactors, we should accept the gift of a =
new=20
ring of bells.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>A few years ago when we started these =
discussions I=20
felt as many of you do rather attached to the bells. I don't have =
a very=20
musical ear and appreciate clarity more than anything. I also =
quite like a=20
physical challenge and to succeed in ringing bells that have defeated =
some=20
ringers younger and stronger than me. If we accept the new bells I =
will=20
never know whether I could have rung the tenor to a peal for my 60th=20
birthday. However there are plenty of physical challenges =
elsewhere, and=20
difficult bells do not strengthen local bands.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I do not like hearing the bells =
disparaged by=20
either Cambridge ringers or those who do not ring here, and it is very=20
disheartening to think that any ringer would be discouraged from ringing =
with us=20
because of the bells' reputation. As the trend for lighter, easier =
and=20
more musical rings elsewhere in the country continues, this situation =
will only=20
get worse and the arguments about new bells will not go =
away.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The alternative to accepting a complete =
installation is to spend time and our own money over a number of years =
trying=20
to improve the current ring. It should be possible to=20
achieve some benefits incrementally, but I am very doubtful =
that we=20
would make a great deal of difference or that the reputation of the =
bells would=20
be much enhanced.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The handling of the bells will always =
be affected=20
by tower sway and while I have considerable personal interest in whether =
improvements can be achieved by active or passive damping, the problems =
are=20
currently too great and should not distract us from making a decision on =
new=20
bells now. I do not think that the frame contributes much to the=20
movement. If we decide to have a new frame as well as new bells it =
should=20
be in order to enable the bells to swing in the optimum direction, to =
achieve=20
the best rope circle, and possibly to save a lot of =
VAT.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Reorientating the bells would produce =
some=20
benefit. Currently the worst effects are produced by the 10 and 11 =
swinging north-south, affecting them and the 1, 2, 3 & 7. =
We=20
could for instance have all of 1-11 swinging east-west with only a =
slight=20
increase in the current maximum amplitude in that direction (which is =
about half=20
the N-S amplitude) but with an extremely low probability of all the =
bells=20
interacting to give that result. The tenor on its own swinging =
north-south=20
would result in about half the present maximum amplitude, and with no=20
interaction with other bells its handling would be =
predictable.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>A lighter ring would help as =
well. The=20
movement seems to be roughly in proportion to the weight, and a say 15%=20
reduction in the weight of each bell would reduce the movement by that=20
amount. The physical effect on the ringer would be reduced by =
a=20
further 15% and there would also be a reduction in the normal =
effort=20
of ringing the bell to changes. I think that a reduction of this =
order is=20
worthwhile.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The biggest unknown is the effect that =
a new ring=20
would have on the sound. I dislike some hummy 20th century rings =
with=20
prominent harmonics. They sound nice enough but are difficult to =
strike=20
well and are therefore unsatisfying to ring. I believe that =
founders are=20
now prepared to adjust their profiles to give their customers what they =
want and=20
I would have to trust others to decide what that should be. =
Fortunately=20
the acoustics of the tower are currently good, and with expert =
advice=20
should remain that way.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For these reasons I intend to support =
the proposals=20
of the working party. Remember that there are good reasons not to =
look a=20
gift horse in the mouth.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Best wishes to all</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Barry</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C79479.49CC06D0--