They're weighed at the bell foundry at the time of casting. The two most famous ones are:
http://www.whitechapelbellfoundry.co.uk/ and http://www.taylorbells.co.uk/ - although, note the description on this page: http://www.taylorbells.co.uk/history.asp Carleton From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeremiah MacGregor Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 17:47 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:43217] Re: true metrication is systemic Interesting.... so it seems that the use of hundredweights is not universal but just American, possibly British. Some of those bells were made a long time prior to the invention of the metric system. I wonder then what weight units were used. Were they the local variations that were used in the town they came from at the time? Was there a standard weight system used everywhere for certain items like the bells? How are these bells weighed since the smallest one seems to be about 1.5 t? Jerry _____ From: Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 4:10:15 PM Subject: [USMA:43213] Re: true metrication is systemic I found an interesting site: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_zwaarste_klokken_in_Nederland - Lijst van zwaarste klokken in Nederland (List of the heaviest bells in the Netherlands). I am not going to translate it. See if you can understand it. Now ask yourself "Is it necessary to use hundredweights, quarters and pounds"? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carleton MacDonald Sent: 22 February 2009 20:06 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:43212] Re: true metrication is systemic And we still measure church bells in hundredweights, quarters, pounds. Unbelievably quaint - and rather strange. Carleton -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Vlietstra Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 13:34 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:43162] Re: true metrication is systemic Not quite right Paul - our pint is 568 ml. Our fl oz is small than yours, but our pint is larger, but what a good reason for everybody to adopt the same standard! BTW, the English ton is 2240 lbs, the American is 2000 lbs, the English hundredweight is 112 lbs, the American one is 100 lbs - an even better reason for a world-wide standard. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Sent: 21 February 2009 17:45 To: U.S.. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:43159] Re: true metrication is systemic ... snip Part of this idea is that 500 mL is larger than the U.S. pint of 473 mL (not so in the UK, where, I believe, it is a 20 fluid ounce pint of 591 mL) ... snip Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Public Relations Director U.S. Metric Association (USMA), Inc. www.metric.org <http://www.metric.org/> 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 US +1(432)528-7724 mailto:[email protected]
