You wouldn't say this guy's bell tinkles for example: upload. In my region Canada 'tinkle' is slang for 'urinate. Show 3 more comments. Edgar Allen Poe's poem The Bells pretty much covers this. In this poem: sleigh bells tinkle and jingle , wedding bells ring and chime , alarm bells clang , funeral bells toll and knell.
For small bells, I think tinkle, jingle, ring would all apply. Peter Shor Peter Shor The sound of a hand held brass bell, to me, is " ding-a-ling. Jex Jex 41 1 1 bronze badge. Featured on Meta. Now live: A fully responsive profile. More accurately, this argument could be applied with an assumed pulse shape, such as a half-cycle sine wave as used by Rayleigh [ 8 ]. Following through the same analysis, incorporating the appropriate low-pass filter derived from the pulse shape, and evaluating the expression corresponding to 32 as a function of the width of the pulse would lead to a minimum possible value for the pulse width of a clean rebound.
Of course, the pulse can always be made longer than this minimum value, for example, by putting a soft spring at the contact point as with the felt facing of piano hammers, but it cannot be made shorter than this value however carefully the surface hardness and the contact geometry might be refined, provided a clean bounce is to occur. Beyond the application to bell-ringing, this result is relevant to the issue of choosing an impulse hammer to measure vibration response of a structure: to excite modes a long way up the modal series, a hammer must be chosen that is very light compared to the mass of the structure, since increasing the hammer mass acts as a low-pass filter.
Indeed, impacts using miniature hammers with hard tips are very prone to multiple contacts; perhaps the reason is that they have , making multiple contacts almost inevitable. A cure would be to use a slightly heavier hammer. It is straightforward to apply the prediction of this simple argument to the behaviour of the laboratory bell discussed in Section 2. The bouncing-clapper tests suggested an initial energy reduction ratio of the order of 0.
That corresponds to a velocity ratio of the order of , and so from 31 , the expected value of is approximately 0. So, we might expect not many more than about 5 modes of the bell to be strongly excited, and certainly no more than about The time-frequency plot in Figure 3 a gives quite good confirmation of this estimate.
It shows three strongly excited modes, plus a few less strong responses at higher frequencies. Bearing in mind that the rigid-body swinging motion, with a frequency close to zero compared to the acoustic modes, must be counted among the strongly excited modes, an aggregate number of the order of 5 is indeed obtained: surprisingly close agreement given the crude nature of the approximations used. Equations 5 , 6 , and 13 determine the motion of the system.
They are too complicated to expect analytical solutions even without impact events, but they can be solved straightforwardly by standard numerical procedures. In this study, the Matlab routine ODE45 was used; this proved satisfactory for all the test cases tried, once suitable values were established for the tolerance parameters required by ODE45 to specify the precision of solution.
The coupled equations 5 and 6 first need to be manipulated to separate. Although the equations are nonlinear, these two quantities occur only in linear combinations in the two equations, so at each time step a pair of simultaneous equations can be solved using the current values of all other variables.
The two second-order equations are then readily separated into four first-order ones, the form required by ODE The exact value of this initial angle turns out not to be critical for the main conclusions of this study: some remarks on this will be made in Section 4.
The simulation then runs for a fixed period of time. Whenever contact between clapper and bell is detected, the contact spring comes into play via the generalised force.
Recall that always. The first set of simulations to be shown use the value ; other values of are used later on to explore the effect of the coefficient of restitution.
Some typical results of the simulations are shown in Figure 9. This plot then shows the typical signature of ringing right; and generally have the same sign throughout the motion. The plot shows the bell angle varying most of the way around the circle for one handstroke and the following backstroke, from near-vertical back to near-vertical in each case. The clapper is limited between the angles for this particular bell. Rather careful examination is needed to see the clapper bouncing in the waveform of clapper relative angle in this plot, but it is much more obvious in the waveform of , shown as a solid line with an amplitude scale factor convenient for fitting it to these axes, the same factor being used for all four cases in Figure 9.
Each bounce shows as a sudden jump in , upwards for the handstroke and downwards for the backstroke. The rapidly decreasing series of impacts following the first bounce can be seen clearly. Figure 9 b shows the same bell ringing wrong. The waveforms all look similar to Figure 9 a , except that now and generally have opposite signs.
Figure 9 c shows a bell ringing right, with rather high values of. All other things being equal, this bell will ring louder than the bell shown in Figure 9 a because its dynamical properties lead to a harder strike of the clapper against the bell.
This might represent a bell that would be hard for the ringer to control, because it might fail to strike during a swing with reduced angle as is frequently necessary during change ringing. More light will be shed on this possibility by the charts to be shown in the next section. As was explained in Section 3. This prediction was tested with the simulation program and found to hold up very well over the range of parameters covering normal bells.
This makes it natural to map behaviour of interest into the plane determined by these two parameters, using whatever approach is computationally convenient to achieve parametric variation in that plane. Note that all simulations were carried out using the full equations, in terms of time.
The approximate equations and the non-dimensional time are not used. The specific procedure used to scan the parameter plane was as follows. The parameter values , and were all taken from the laboratory bell and clapper as listed in Table 1 , and were kept fixed throughout.
The period was held fixed at 1. The corresponding value of is 0. To achieve each particular point in the parameter plane, the length was first chosen to achieve the desired value of , then the offset distance was chosen to match the value of. The parameter was held fixed at the value and the required value of computed from 8. The clapper period could be changed by counterbalancing or otherwise changing the mass distribution. This angle varies slightly among different bells, but the behaviour is not found to be very sensitive to the exact value, so it is felt that the charts computed here will give a reasonable representation of the behaviour of all normal church bells.
Ranges of the two dimensionless parameters were chosen to match those used in the earlier study [ 3 ], and a grid was used to cover this rectangular region of the plane. For each point in this grid, the simulation program was run with initial conditions corresponding to ringing right and ringing wrong. The resulting computed motion was analysed to detect whether the bell was able to continue ringing right, wrong, neither, or both.
Impacts were also detected, allowing a number of useful quantities to be computed; relevant to the following discussion are the bell angle at first impact, the clapper relative angular velocity just before each impact, and the time delay between the first and second impacts. Figure 10 shows the value of at first impact for all configurations capable of ringing right Figure 10 a and all capable of ringing wrong Figure 10 b ; since was initially positive, first impact normally occurs at a negative angle.
Values of zero, and the darkest blue shade, correspond to points where the relevant regular ringing was not possible. This is a tribute to the earlier study, using such a different approach and relatively primitive equipment, and it is also a valuable check on the accuracy of the current simulation model.
Figure 11 shows, in the same format as Figure 10 , the value of at first impact, which must inevitably be negative for ringing right and positive for ringing wrong. The magnitude of translates roughly into loudness of the strike for a given bell.
It is important to note that the numerical value of is not the same for different bells occupying the same position on the clappering chart, because the justification for the chart axes was based on the non-dimensional time variable introduced in However, the time-scale implicit in does not in fact vary over this version of the diagram since it was computed with a fixed bell period , so it should give results representative of typical church bells.
Note from Figure 11 that when a given bell is capable of being rung both right and wrong, there is usually a different value of at first impact for the two cases. This means that a switch from ringing right to ringing wrong will usually change the loudness of that bell, sometimes drastically, and the ringer has no way to compensate for this.
Figure 11 shows what happens on one set of boundaries in the charts: the upper limit on ringing right and the lower limit on ringing wrong. On both these boundaries, the value of at first impact goes to zero. There is no transfer of energy, and no strike will be audible. The strike gets progressively stronger, in either case, as the position in the chart moves further from this boundary into the region where the chosen ringing pattern right or wrong can be sustained.
Study of the detailed simulation results reveals what happens to the bell and clapper on the other side of these boundaries. The value of at first impact increases again, but now after the first impact, the clapper crosses the bell and impacts on the other side during the same swing of the bell. Thereafter, the ringing pattern switches; for example, in Figure 11 a at a point just above the boundary, a bell that was initially ringing right switches to ringing wrong.
The vertical axis in the clappering charts shows and hence determines the period of the bell swing relative to the clapper swing. For ringing right, one might have thought that the clapper needs a shorter period than the bell so that it can catch up, while the converse would be the case for ringing wrong.
The plots show the opposite pattern. It does not start its flight until it reaches the lift-off angle, plotted in Figure 7 for the particular case of. Towards the bottom of the charts, a bell ringing right shows late lift-off, while the same bell ringing wrong shows very early lift-off.
The pattern is reversed at the top of the charts. What is seen in the simulations is the behaviour described earlier: except in pathological cases, if the clapper lifts off very early during the first down-swing, it will strike the opposite side sufficiently early to take up the behaviour it would have had if it had started on that side.
It will cross over and strike a second time. If the bell had been set off in a configuration for ringing right, it switches to ringing wrong, and vice versa. So, early lift-off is a sign of a style of ringing right or wrong that is not stable and spontaneously reverses.
The pattern of lift-off angles shown in Figure 7 is then consistent with the fact that ringing right tends to occur in the lower part of the clappering chart and ringing wrong in the upper part.
The simulation results for the full pattern of lift-off angles for bells ringing right and wrong are shown in Figure The columns in these plots corresponding to confirm the values shown in Figure 7.
The physical condition determining the other main boundaries in the clappering charts, the curving lines on the left-hand side, is revealed by Figure An example close to this boundary was shown in Figure 9 d , indicated by a diamond symbol in Figure 10 a.
The laboratory bell is indicated in Figures 10 a and 10 b by a star; the model agrees with practical experience that this bell is able to ring either right or wrong. Finally, the square symbol in Figure 10 a shows the position of the bell illustrated in Figure 9 c ; this has roughly the same value of at first impact as the laboratory bell, but Figure 11 a shows that it has much higher impact velocity.
The aspects of behaviour discussed so far do not depend on what happens after the first impact, so the value of used in the simulations makes virtually no difference to the plots. The next aspect to be discussed, however, does depend on the bouncing of the clapper.
This is the question of double striking or double clappering. Some bells produce a clear audible impression of a double strike on each stroke.
The first question to ask is why this is not the case for all bells, since the results of Figures 2 and 5 show that there are always multiple impacts between the clapper and the bell during normal ringing. The human hearing system has evolved to cope with sounds in the presence of echoes from environmental features like trees or walls.
It was presumably important for our distant ancestors to be able to distinguish and locate the actual source of a sound, without being too confused by echoes from other directions. The result is that if we hear a sound followed quickly by a recognisable copy of the same sound, especially if it comes from a different direction, our brains identify the second sound as probably being an echo. We are then, ordinarily, not consciously aware of the echo as a separate event, although it contributes to our sense of the acoustical environment we are in.
The sound of a church bell excited by multiple clapper strikes may tap into this mechanism, so that the later impacts are perceptually discounted to a greater or lesser extent. In the case of the bell, there is no directional difference between the sounds, so the echo suppression effect is less strong than in the case of, for example, wall reflections in an enclosed space.
Nevertheless, it seems to be empirically the case that most bells are not perceived as producing multiple strikes. To establish a criterion for the perception of double striking so that it can be explored in a clappering chart requires experimental input. A simple listening test was conducted in which 19 experienced ringers were played computer-synthesised sounds and, for each one, were asked to say whether they would describe it as a single strike or a double strike.
Each sound represented a bell being struck twice; the first strike was the same in each of the tests, while the second was quieter or at least no louder because of being scaled down by an amplitude ratio that was varied between the different sounds. The synthesised strike sound was based on the strong frequencies of the laboratory bell. The time delay between the two strikes was also varied between the different sounds. On the basis of preliminary tests, suitable ranges were chosen for both parameters: ten values of amplitude ratio from 0.
A grid of equally spaced values covering these two ranges was used. Each listener was presented with these sounds, in a random order that was different for each test. Sounds were presented via Sennheiser HD headphones. Responses were collected using a Matlab program and processed by a very simple procedure.
It turned out that the two youngest subjects both teenagers produced a very different pattern of responses from the rest. This may point towards an interesting psychoacoustical phenomenon possibly worthy of further study, but for the present purpose, it was judged to be a distraction from the main task. The zero contour, representing an estimate of the mean threshold of perception for double striking, is marked by the heavy black line: any sound represented by a point below and to the left of this line was perceived by the majority of listeners as a single strike, whereas one above and to the right of the line was perceived by the majority as a double strike.
The line is shown in Figure 13 as the lower white curve, matching the threshold line quite well. Describing Pleasing Sounds. How do you spell a moan sound? A moan is a low sound, generally. How do you describe a scary sound?
What is the sound of water? How do you describe silence? What is a short i sound? Short "I" Words. What does a bell do? How do you write sounds in writing? Why is sound important? Is human hearing better or worse than animals? How do humans produce sound?
How fast does sound travel? What are properties of sound? How do we perceive sound? Why is sound made? How is sound made on a drum? When a bell is struck, the metal vibrates. The vibrations travel through the air as sound waves. When these waves reach our ears, they make our eardrums vibrate, and we hear the sound of the bell ringing.
Sound always needs to travel through some kind of medium, such as air, water, or metal.
0コメント