[r-t] Cover bells

[Graham John]

I feel that Philip's suggestion for treatment of cover bells is problematic
for a number of reasons, in particular the determination of stage and truth.
Below is a suggestion for handling cover bells and variable cover in a much
more succinct way than the current decisions. 

"Peals at any stage may have one cover (or lead) bell that is not counted
for the determination of stage or truth. If, however, the cover bell is
affected by calls, then truth is determined by treating all the rows as
being at the higher stage, and the peal is described as 'Variable Cover'.
Reports of variable cover peals shall state the two stages, the number of
different cover bells and the number of changes of cover bell."

I have deliberately included a constraint here i.e. one cover or lead bell.
The problem is, without this constraint we drift away from of change ringing
as we understand it. I am not convinced that a peal of Minimus with 12 cover
bells at Birmingham would pass "Don's Test" as it would sound like rounds
with some poor striking, not change ringing. 

For a similar reason, I prefer the Norwich Axioms definition of a lead, as a
method defined with a cover bell would actually be a method at a different
stage.

"A lead is defined as the shortest part of a method which, when repeated,
will generate the entire plain course. A lead of a method must be true
within itself, and no bell may remain in the same position throughout a
lead."

Graham

 

 

  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20080805/2743e283/attachment-0003.html>