[r-t] Stedman Doubles derivative
edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Mon Feb 12 03:39:35 UTC 2007
Yes it is indeed.
As originally published in The Bell News, John Carter gave the figures
of both Doubles & Triples side by side
Incidentally, if we take Graham's preferred PN
On all odd numbers, if x is the highest number of bells involved, then
Carter's can be set out as being:
This PN will maintain reverse plain hunt coursing order on all numbers
For example Caters would run:
I don't think that the online collections will recognise any rotation
of PN, thus Carter's is there but as x.3.1.3.x.184.108.40.206.5.3.1
On 11/02/07, rchat <rchat at allton.org.uk> wrote:
> It is Carter Doubles:
> Carter: 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206.
> Yours : 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124
> Just starting from a different place (2 divisions of Carter given above)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net
> [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of
> grahamfeeney at bulldoghome.com
> Sent: 11 February 2007 11:46
> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> Subject: Re: [r-t] Stedman Doubles derivative
> I've been on Visual Method Archive. I am not used to MicroSyril notation,
> so I've just written it out longhand:
> 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206 The single can go in at the first six.
> VMA says its unrung.
> It does not seem to be listed on http://www.methods.org.uk in Principles
> It looks a bit like Reverse Stedman and has some similarity to Carter.
> I'll try the webmaster.
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory