[r-t] Avonlink

[Rebecca Cox]

We recently rang a palindromic linearly-cyclic peal of maximus using a simple link method
Avonlink Little Alliance -34-3T-34-1T-34 le 12 13T20E896745
to move from one part to the next. A little later it struck me that the link method and calls used for the 12-bell peal could also provide a good basis for a related palindromic linearly-cyclic peal of major. A little work proved that this was indeed the case and we rang this last Friday at Barrow Gurney (composition provided previously). The link methods used form part of a family of methods with similar features and constructions which works on 4n bells (n integer and > 1):
-34-18-34 le 12 13826745 
-34-3T-34-1T-34 le 12 13T20E896745 
-34-3D-34-3D-34-1D-34 le 12 13D2BCTA0E896745 
etc.
The simple and direct relationship between these methods is obvious when comparing the blue lines but is also clear if the upper and lower places are separated and X is used for an extreme (front or back) place:
Upper:
(8) -4-X-4, (12) -4-X-4-X-4, (16) -4-X-4-X-4-X-4, etc
Lower
(8) -3-X-3, (12) -3-3-3-X-3, (16) -3-3-3-3-3-X-3, etc

Not surprisingly, although the methods have similar features, equivalent lead ends and follow the same simple rules, they would not be allowed to have the same name under the present CC decisions on extension because they are little methods which have different lead lengths. My view is that these methods do form a single family and should be entitled to have the same name. I feel that both methods should be called Avonlink but, for the time being, we have used the name Avon Link for the major. The restriction on lead length appears to me to be unnecessary, arbitrary, and have no basis in history or method theory. Perhaps someone might like to give a justification for it.

Many little methods can be members of two families; one family which has the same lead length, the other where the lead length increases with the number of bells. Little Bob Minor is the smallest member of the two families:
(6) -16-14, (8) -18-14, (10) -10-14, (12) -1T-14, etc
(6) -16-14, (8) -18-18-16, (10) -10-10-10-18, (12) -1T-1T-1T-1T-10, etc
A more complex example (and there are many more) would be Cunning Little Vixen Little Surprise Major (Kent TB Minor with a dodging pair of covering bells in each lead)
mx 34-34.16-12-16-12-16.
This can be rung on a higher number by increasing the number of covering bells and keeping the lead constant:
mx 34-34.16-12-16-12-16
or by maintaining just two covering bells and extending the lead:
mx 34-34.18-12-18-12-18-12-18
A priori I can see no reason for favouring one of these families other the other.

I think the major method we rang should have the same name as the maximus as I believe the Council's express objective `to encourage development of the art of ringing through innovation' should take precedence over the restrictions contained in the decision on extension which appear to go counter to this prime objective. I would also hope that new cases would always be assessed with an open mind rather than just be dismissed as non-conforming without proper consideration of the merits of the case. I would therefore appreciate comments from other members of this list on whether they feel this family of methods is sufficiently close to have the same name. The role of the Methods Committee is `to consider and advise on all questions arising from the interpretation of the Council's Decisions relating to methods, calls, and peal ringing' (from their terms of reference) so that by raising the question in a public way now, with those whom I consider to be the experts in the field, I hope the Methods Committee will be able to consider the issues and the views of not just of those that have rung the method concerned but also of other interested parties as well.

Note too that similar points to those above can also be made about principles.

Tony Cox

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20050315/5c0406e3/attachment-0003.html>