[r-t] Grandsire, et al.
robin at robinw.org.uk
Mon Apr 17 07:48:49 UTC 2006
In reply to Peter & Leigh.
Firstly, Peter says, '"rules" are simply conventions and codify what has
been done (by and large) in the past'. Quite true, but over the fifty-odd
years that rules on extension have been around, they have become
over-complicated. We have arrived at the situation whereby it is possible
for a 34 place notation to become 36 in an extension.
However, the rules on extension by one stage are still fundamentally based
upon 'what has been done in the past'. It goes back to 1788 when Single
Oxford Minor was rung to triples by adding a hunt bell. Since then, as I
mentioned previously, D. Oxford, Hereward, St. Clement's, S. & D. Court,
London & College have all been rung to triples by adding a hunt bell, the
last being Hereward in 1935.
Consider (ex. for reader) the effect of ringing S. Oxford Triples as a Plain
Bob type extension.
Peter does make, perhaps, the most important point when talking about the
way people ring the methods. (b.t.w., why do those who say Grandsire is
their favourite method invariably ring it so badly?) I agree with him.
New Bob, which Peter mentions, is a single hunt doubles method at its lowest
stage, so all odd stages have one hunt, whilst all even stages have two
hunts. However, if you add an extra hunt bell to G8, making three, don't you
just get a bob course of PB9?
I agree with Peter about indefinite extension. Since ringing takes place on
finite numbers of bells, the indefinicacy requirement seems a little
superfluous, to say the least, although some guidance for selecting amongst
competing extensions is desirable.
Peter might find Queer TB major (34x34.1x2x1x2x220.127.116.11.1) is a 'good'
extension of Writtle - it's a quantum extension.
More information about the ringing-theory