[r-t] Stedman Doubles derivative

grahamfeeney at bulldoghome.com grahamfeeney at bulldoghome.com
Sun Feb 11 11:35:45 UTC 2007

Hello All

I've been playing with Abel and whilst trying to get the place notation
for Reverse Stedman in, I accidentally wound up with a slightly different

1z &

This is not the same as Reverse Stedman Doubles as the 'lead end' is 1. 
I've been able to give it a single (123) and can get a true 120 using
Stedman 120 (1/5) as given in Abel.

I cannot find a match for this in the archives and our local expert
thought that it was worth putting out to ask opinions about whether the
principle is unrung.


Graham Feeney, Cardiff

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list