I think those who responded to the article in The Ringing World were in fact of the older generation, and had been raised on imperial units.
The units used probably had a lot to do with where it was made, but in many cases writers will still convert the units to Imperial if they are writing in a UK or US publication. (The London Daily Telegraph does this - they almost never use metric units.) The author of this article, however, did not. Carleton -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Humphreys Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 05:38 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:38449] RE: Bellringing and Metric "The horrible European metric system is the only one now taught in our schools" I wonder why that gets repeated so much because its not true (ie it's not horrible and it's not the only one that's taught). This seems to be said only by 40+ year old's. I wonder if the units used were due to the place of manufacture and the person who ordered it. >From: "Carleton MacDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:38448] Bellringing and Metric >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:46:38 -0400 > >Some background first. > > > >About eight months ago I started learning change bell ringing at the >Washington National Cathedral a long-term effort requiring diligent and >frequent practice and the willingness to deal with the frustration of not >learning it right away! Stephen Humphreys and the others from the UK will >know immediately what this is as there are over 5000 bell towers over >there. >(In North America, there are far fewer only about 42 in the USA and 8 in >Canada, with a few others in other parts of the world. As befits its >origins most of these rings (but not all) are in Episcopal/Anglican >churches.) > > > >For those not from the UK, who may not know as much about change ringing, >the following three links may be interesting. > > > >The Cathedrals Bells > >http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/music/bells.shtml > > > >The Washington Ringing Society > >http://www.cathedral.org/wrs/wrs.htm > > > >North America Guild of Change Ringers > >http://www.nagcr.org/ > > > >As you can see from the second of the three links, there is a column >describing the Cathedrals bells called CWT. This is the traditional way >to describe the weight of a bell. It came from England and is over 400 >years old. The three numbers mean, in order > > > >Hundredweights (112 lbs, not 100, dont ask me why) > >Quarters (28 lbs, not 25 two stone apparently make a quarter) > >Pounds same thing as any other pound > > > >So the largest bell at the Cathedral, called the tenor bell (the tenor is >the largest bell in any tower; the treble is the smallest; this applies no >matter how many bells there are), is described as 32-0-4, meaning 32 cwt 0 >qtr 4 lb, that is (32x112) + (0x28) + (4x1) lbs, or 3584 + 0 + 4 = 3588 lb. > > > >(Although these bells are very heavy, the largest weighing as much as a >car, >they are so well balanced and the bearings so well crafted that one person >can easily ring any of them. Often a 60 kg woman will ring the tenor bell >described above, and there are some young teenage girls from the Cathedral >school who are learning to ring.) > > > >There is a bronze plaque in the ringing room in the tower entitled The >Cathedral Ring describing all 10 bells, what note each plays, who donated >it, and its weight, in lbs only. Describing the weight in lbs only is not >the traditional way, but the ring was fairly new in the USA and I guess it >was felt that the UK method would be too confusing as it isnt used over >here. > > > >Why is it done this way? The only guess I can come up with is that 400 >years ago, few people had mathematical ability, particularly with large >numbers. So a given property (weight in this case) was chopped up into >many >names so that no one number would get that big. If you werent good with >large numbers 32-0-4 was probably easier to understand than 3588. (This >probably also explains weight in stone and lb, or, for that matter, feet >and >inches, ounces/cups/pints/quarts/gallons, dry pints/dry >quarts/pecks/bushels, etc.) > > > >Now, I told you that story to tell you this one. > > > >There is a weekly newsletter for ringers, called The Ringing World. It is >published in the UK by the Central Council of >Church Bell Ringers. > > > >http://www.ringingworld.co.uk/ > > > >About a month and a half ago, the cover story (by Alan Blair) was of this >absolutely gigantic bell that was cast for a VERY rich person in Japan for >a >tower as his bungalow near the foot of Mt. Fuji. It is not part of a >ring >of bells, but will stand alone. It is one of the largest bells ever made >(it actually had to be cast at a shipyard using the equipment that makes >propellers, as the Eijsbouts Bellfoundry in the Netherlands had no >equipment >that could make a bell of that size). The size was described by the >British >writer of the article as something like 3.82 m in diameter, 3.72 m tall, >and >with a mass of 36.2 tonnes. The clapper alone was 1550 kg. Yes, all >measurements were metric (I may be a bit off on the exact figures), >imperial >measure was nowhere to be found, and the article was written by a British >writer. Amazingly, the bell will be rung by HAND (four people on ropes). >I was quite pleased (and a little surprised, given the cwt tradition) to >see >the bell described this way. > > > >The Ringing World of course also has a letters section, and I started >looking at this section in later issues with interest, wondering what the >comments on this article were going to be like. They werent long in >coming. Here they are. > > > >First Letter Issue of February 23, 2007 > > > >Imperial Preference > > > >SIR, - Alan Blairs articles are always welcome, but would you please wield >the editorial pencil and convert his French metric measurements into >British >imperial ones. > > > >The impact of todays front cover story (9th February) was completely lost >with incomprehensible measurements! > > > >- P.G.S., Middlesex. > > > >Second Letter Issue of March 30, 2007 > > > >Metric Measures > > > >SIR, - Get with it P.S. (letters, page 187). Do you still shop with >£.s.d.? > > > >The horrible European metric system is the only one now taught in our >schools. > > > >No wonder youngsters think were odd! > > > >- A.C., Leicester > > > >Third Letter Issue of April 6, 2007 > > > >Post Imperial Delight > > > >SIR, - Alan Blairs articles are always welcome and it was a delight to see >weights and sizes given in metric units in his 9th February piece. I am so >pleased no attempt was made to convert them into some other, long-outdated >and thoroughly confusing system. To have done so would have rendered the >article incomprehensible and robbed of any impact. > > > >- D.N., Hobart, Tasmania > > > >Carleton > > > >P.S. Its actually not too hard to estimate how big a bell is 1 cwt is >about 50.8 kg so if you know the cwt figure, divide it by 2, add two >zeros, and youll come close to the mass in kg 32 cwt/2 = 16 plus 2 zeros >= 1600 kg. (Actual figure is 3588 x 0.454 = 1629 kg, rounded off. But >thats close enough for understanding it. This would make the mass of the >bell in the article something north of 710 cwt, as theyd describe it.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile. https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/
