[r-t] Stedman Doubles derivative

[Alexander pool]

Have you tried: http://www.methods.org.uk/ if not then try there, and after 
that contact the webmaster, he's incredibly helpful, and will be able to 
tell you if it's been rung before.

Alex


From: grahamfeeney at bulldoghome.com
Reply-To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: [r-t] Stedman Doubles derivative
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:35:45 -0000 (UTC)

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
principle:

1z &3.5.1.3.5.3

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.

Cheers

Graham Feeney, Cardiff


_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile.  
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/