[r-t] Stedman Doubles derivative

[edward martin]

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:
3.x.1.3.5.3.5.3.1.x.3.1
This PN will  maintain reverse plain hunt coursing order on all numbers
For example Caters would run:

123456789
213547698  3
------------------
125374968  x
152739486  1
512374968  3
153279486  5
513724968  3
157329486  5
517234968  3
571329486  1
------------------
753192846  x
573918264  3
537192846  1

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.1.3.5.3.5.3.1

mew



On 11/02/07, rchat <rchat at allton.org.uk> wrote:
> Graham,
>
> It is Carter Doubles:
>
> Carter: 5.3.1.3.5.1.3.5.3.5.3.1.5.3.1.3.5.1.3.5.3.5.3.1.
> Yours :       3.5.1.3.5.3.5.3.1.5.3.1
>
> Just starting from a different place (2 divisions of Carter given above)
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> -----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:
>
> 3.5.1.3.5.3.5.3.1.5.3.1  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
> Doubles.
>
> It looks a bit like Reverse Stedman and has some similarity to Carter.
>
> I'll try the webmaster.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graham
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>