>From The Ringing World issue 5195 (November 19, 2010), a letter to the editor, regarding the description of bells recently restored in a tower in the UK.
SIR: - It was very pleasurable to read from D________ N________ that another historic ring had been retained and restored to its former glory on your recent front page (5192). Bells are so much part of our English Heritage but so too is our Weights and Measurements systems, so I was disappointed at the end not to be told the true [sic] weight [sic] and diameter of at least the Tenor [the largest bell] as it would have been recorded in 1687. I am sure I am not alone amongst your circulation who do not relate well to 'DVI' [not sure what DVI is] kg. I also see its Note was recorded as kg as well! J__________ Y _______________ Ockham, Surrey Ed [Ringing World editor]: Whitechapel [bell founders] have kindly provided the Durham weights in a more familiar format: [in order, bell, diameter, note, and 'weight' in cwt (hundredweights/quarters/pounds - I dare not put in a table as some e-mail clients may not reproduce it correctly, especially if you have your e-mail client set to turn everything in to plain text. The 'tenor' is the largest and heaviest bell in the group and the 'treble' the smallest lightest; the others are indicated by number. cm] Tenor - 3'2" - A - 9-3-23 5th - 2'10" - B - 7-1-16 4th - 2' 65/8"* - C# - 5-2-22 3rd - 2' 51/8" - D - 5-0-16 2nd - 2" 33/8 - E - 4-0-24 Treble - 2" 23/8' - F# - 4-0-16 [end of letter and editor's response] *As shown in the original printing, no doubt this means 2 ft 6 5/8 in. Confusing, no? The original submission as published in Issue 5192. In order: bell, diameter in mm, note, and mass in kg. The editors printed it as submitted, which prompted the letter above. Tenor - 965 - A - 506 5th - 865 - B - 376 4th - 780 - C# - 289 3rd - 740 - D - 261 2nd - 695 - E - 214 Treble - 670 - F# - 211 I leave it to the reader which is easier to understand. Carleton
