Thoughts about tuning system of the 65 Zeng bells from 433 B.C.

I realise it is late into this project, yet I have had little spare time recently to following it in detail.
Anyway, here are my two cents.

Is it possible that these tunings could have been devised using an entirely different perspective and paradigm?

e.g. Could they have been constructed starting from pi, as John Harrison did;
and then applied to an "octave" (also derived from pi)?
This would explain the 695 and 505 values, and stretched octave.

As with Harrison's concepts, from the point of view of "modern" (harmonics are only at small integer frequency ratios) music theorists, it would naively be viewed as "just" another meantone.

Has anyone yet tried conceptualising the intervals used for the bells as Large and small intervals?

I'm sure that the Chinese would have been familiar with the concept of pi, over 2000 years ago.

Charles Lucy - lucy@harmonics.com (LucyScaleDevelopments)
------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -------
for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/
for LucyTuned Lullabies go to http://www.lucytune.com
or http://www.lucytune.co.uk or http://www.lullabies.co.uk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:

> Is it possible that these tunings could have been devised using an
> entirely different perspective and paradigm?

We don't even have enough evidence to bring meantone into the
question in the first place.

> I'm sure that the Chinese would have been familiar with the
concept of
> pi, over 2000 years ago.

1500 years ago, Tsu Chung Chi found the very accurate approximation
355/113 for pi; that's all I know about Chinese mathematics and pi,
but obviously they knew quite a bit at that point.

Charles Lucy wrote:

> I'm sure that the Chinese would have been familiar with the concept of > pi, over 2000 years ago.

All Chinese texts use pi=3 until the 2nd Century AD.

Graham