[r-t] Change Proposal to CC Decisions - on peal lengths
I.Fielding at rbht.nhs.uk
Mon Jun 26 10:34:02 UTC 2006
I would agree with this. Why not say "Peals on 7 bells and less must
contain atleast 5000 changes and each row the same number of times" (i.e
multiples of extents) this would mean you could ring 5016 of Minimus and
QP's of 1250 - 1259. It keeps the mathematical purity of whole extents
and as far as I can see allow peals of major over 40320 to be rung
without demanding another 40320 changes. I am quite sure that sooner or
later a band would go for 50000 on tower bells.
From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net
[mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Martin
Sent: 26 June 2006 11:09
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] Change Proposal to CC Decisions - on peal lengths
On 6/24/06, Barriehen at aol.com <Barriehen at aol.com> wrote:
> In terms of Surprise Maximus ringing 5280 was the norm until it was
> that a course could be shortened. So here was the case of a peal not
> having anything to do with an extent , then being shortened by a
> which was not approved of by many ringers, and which gained full
> with time. Even after the first 5042's were rung they were for
> years regarded as suitable only for Thursday night peals and full 10
> were rung on saturdays. So 5000 was not seen as the peal length in
Isn't this missing the point by a substantial distance? As far as I
understand it, the ringing of 5280s was nothing to do with the length
a peal should be, but rather the length a peal had to be if singles
weren't to be used.
As Graham is asking for opinions, I'll say that I don't agree with
reducing the minimum length to 5000 for triples and below. Looking at
Graham's email from Saturday, points 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all basically
"why not?" (point 4 also makes little sense - I can't see that peals
of major and above can be used to give an indication of how often
people ring an extent with an extra plain course inserted). Point 5,
which gives the reason for the change, is in my view irrelevant. I
really can't see why peal lengths need adjusting to solve the problem
of quarter peals of triples between 1250 and 1259 changes. I also
don't see why allowing 5080s of doubles but not 5000s is any less
logical than allowing 5079s but not 4999s.
Why is there a need to ring parts of an extent at lower stages? The
link to major, allowing lengths between 40320 and 80640, seems wholly
spurious. Changing the rules to allow one and a bit extents seems no
more radical than ringing just the bit of an extent.
It's been said that peals of doubles where different rows are rung a
different number of times should be allowed so that anniversaries can
be marked by suitable numbers of changes. Is this really important?
I don't think a peal of 5040 doubles to mark the Queen's birthday is
any less of an achievement or tribute than a 5080.
Why should hundreds of years of precedent be abandoned for no
overwhelmingly compelling reason? If the peal length is to be
standardised at 5000 so that 40 changes can be left out of an extent,
why not change it to 4998, so that three whole leads of Grandsire
Triples can be ommited? Or 4997, so it can come round at handstroke?
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
The information contained in this email may be subject to public disclosure under the NHS Code of Openness or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this email, and your reply cannot be guaranteed.
The information and material in this email is intended for the use of the intended addressee or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee. It may contain privileged or confidential information and/or copyright material.
If you receive this email by mistake please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software or notify Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Trust Help Desk on +44(0) 20 7351 8696
Communication is not sent through a secure server; Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Trust cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy of outgoing electronic mail. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent the view of Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Trust unless specifically stated.
More information about the ringing-theory