[Bell Historians] Re: Alan Buswell's "new survey" (RW, page 541)

Alan Buswell aaj.buswell at 6M_CE6dWqpqlZl-kgPreXxUDsx7j3bQ2dUaE9pdhiZzJsg6844Ib-7eV83t2H0m3d5QXQutupdjxYtLsWMatn9sDS9w.yahoo.invalid
Tue May 20 14:41:51 BST 2008

Why not! What then, for example, is the maximum number of changes to a quarter peal before it becomes a half peal or a long length?

Alan B
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Bryant 
  To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 5:12 PM
  Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Re: Alan Buswell's "new survey" (RW, page 541)

  "At the far stretch of the imagination there are no 'set rules' for quarter peals. The CC give guidelines for peals and as far as I know these can not be recognised rung on three bells. However they are recorded (but not since 1961) but not counted in my analysis. However repeated quarters on 3 can lead to an augmentation."

  I cannot see that the rules for peals are really relevant - they do not apply to quarters.

  I maintain my original point that counting an augmentation from 3 as a new ring is wrong - there is no reason to treat them any differently to, say 4 to 5 or 5 to 6 augmentations. Although most ringers and territorial associations take no interest in lower numbers (except in occasional fits of control-freakery), they are still rings of bells.


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG.
  Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1448 - Release Date: 16/05/2008 19:42

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20080520/e8ab20d1/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list