No, this is due to Tradition. Change bell ringing is a very old Tradition, which is another way of saying “Don’t change anything ever.” The bells were measured that way hundreds of years ago in a way that almost everything was – remember, most people back then could not comprehend large numbers (as in: one, two, three, many). There is no intent to deliberately confuse, it is just the way things are done. It’s related to the ancient concept of measuring the height of horses in “hands” (the “hand” is defined as 4 inches) because, hundreds of years ago, that’s what people used (literally).
None of the bells in the various web sites Martin sent along are change ringing bells, so they would be measured “normally”, that is, in kg, possibly with pounds; this is why the odd cwt-qtr-lb indications aren’t there. Only change ringing bells are measured using hundredweights, quarters and pounds. It is hard to figure out how great or small the mass is of any bell when measured in that archaic manner, but I suppose it does have some utility in comparing the size of bells to each other. That is, the tenor bell at the Washington National Cathedral, 32-0-4 by the ancient measure (3588 lb or 1629 kg), is over seven times the size of the heaviest bell at St. Martin-in-the-Fields in Philadelphia, 4-2-8 (512 lb or 232 kg). We have a plaque in the Cathedral bell tower describing the bells and their dedication. The mass of each bell is shown and it is in pounds only, as no one but a change ringer would have ANY idea what “32-0-4” meant. The main reason we keep having to measure the bells that way is because there would be a giant uproar from the UK if we didn’t. And of the 5300 or so change bell ringing towers in the world with bells, over 5100 of them are in the UK. I could waste emotional energy fussing over this, but it would do NO good and only get me frustrated. In posting 38448, dated April 18, 2007, I posted this. It gives you an idea of what would happen if we did not talk to many members of the bell ringing community in the way they want (“French metric measurements”, indeed). Yet, two of the writers actually praised the metric version. 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 weren’t long in coming. Here they are. First Letter – Issue of February 23, 2007 “Imperial Preference” SIR, - Alan Blair’s 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 today’s 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 we’re odd! - A.C., Leicester Third Letter – Issue of April 6, 2007 “Post Imperial Delight” SIR, - Alan Blair’s 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 From: Kilopascal [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 10:06 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:52671] RE: Germany: Thieves swipe 5 tons of chocolate spread First of all I would be curious to know who today can visualise and comprehend hundredweights and quarters without first converting it either physically (with paper, pencil and calculator) or mentally to either kilograms or pounds? If virtually no one can, then what purpose is there to state something in these obsolete units other then to deliberately confuse? I'm sure some will use the excuse of tradition, but traditions can and do change with the times. I find Martin's Wikipedia article somewhat odd. Why are all the pound weights in round numbers and the kilograms are exact conversions right down to the kilogram? Is someone going to tell me that those bells were made to an exact hundred thousands of pounds? Heaviest functioning bell in the world The title of most massive functioning bell in the world has been held chronologically by: Year lb tons kg Bell Fate 732 96,000 48 43,545 To-dai-ji Temple Bell <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Ddai-ji> Surpassed 1484 655,000 327.5 297,103 Great Bell of Dhammazedi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bell_of_Dhammazedi> Sunk during transport 1602 96,000 48 43,545 To-dai-ji Temple Bell Surpassed 1633 148,000 74 67,132 Chion-in Temple Bell <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chion-in> Surpassed 1810 195,000 97.5 88,451 Mingun Bell <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingun_Bell> Fell during earthquake 1839 148,000 74 67,132 Chion-in Temple Bell Surpassed 1896 195,000 97.5 88,451 Mingun Bell Surpassed 1902 251,000 125.5 113,852 Shitennō-ji Temple Bell <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitenn%C5%8D-ji> Recycled for war 1942 195,000 97.5 88,451 Mingun Bell Surpassed 2000 255,200 127.6 115,757 Bell of Good Luck <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_of_Good_Luck> Incumbent Was the Bell of Good Luck made in China in 2000 made to a nice round number of pounds? Why don't the tons have the same numerals as the kilograms if the ton (tonne) is a true 1000 kg? If the pound weights were made round because pound users can't deal with too many digits and are not the true weights to begin with, then the metric masses should also be rounded to afford them the same relative accuracy. [USMA:52671] RE: Germany: Thieves swipe 5 tons of chocolate spread <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22%5BUSM A%3A52671%5D+RE%3A+Germany%3A+Thieves+swipe+5+tons+of+chocolate+spread%22> Martin Vlietstra <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22Martin+Vl ietstra%22> Sun, 14 Apr 2013 00:12:36 -0700 <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20130414> In spite of that, Wikipedia does not follow that convention - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heaviest_bells and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_(instrument) . From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carleton MacDonald Sent: 13 April 2013 22:28 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:52670] RE: Germany: Thieves swipe 5 tons of chocolate spread For bell ringing, archaic units are still used to measure the mass of bells. It comes from England hundreds of years ago when people could not understand large numbers. The bells are shown in hundredweight (112 lb), quarters (28 lb or two stone) and pounds. Three numbers. Our heaviest bell, 1629 kg, is shown as 32-0-4 which is 3588 lb - but that was an impossibly large number for most people to understand way back when, so three small numbers were used instead. Tradition is very hard to overcome, though occasionally in The Ringing World, and in some individual church bell web sites, bell mass is shown in kg. We use stone, or, rather, stones, at the Washington National Cathedral, too. It's what the Cathedral is made of. Limestone blocks and carved pieces of limestone for the decorative parts. Carleton
