[r-t] Proof of twin-stage peals [was Anything Goes vs Peals

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Sun Aug 10 20:22:44 UTC 2008

> Well I think a peal of Major with an extent of Minor in it is probably a> false peal. Certainly a peal of Triples with an extent of Singles in it is.> However, no cut-off we can devise is going to be perfect.
Firstly i think this should be resolved if possible without having to have exceptions accepted individually. Though a clear mechanism for accepting exceptions could be very good.
I think that there are only 2 real options here, either have the N and N+1 rule you prefer or you don't limit what stages you use which i think is the way forwards.
Consider this: under your suggested rules, a peal of Triples with an extent of minor with 7-8 covering added in is fine, but make that a peal of Triples and Major with an extent of minor with 7-8 covering added in and it is ruled out. Now there is no difference between the portions of the peal that are minor and so i am struggling to see the logic behind ruling one out and not the other.
On the compositions side, on higher numbers could you use extents on low numbers to turn the back bells between positions? If you're ringing 12, have an extent of PB doubles on the 7-E and insert max/cinques round blocks method at the appropriate points. I am not much of a composer so don't know if this idea has any value, but there may be uses for these things.
> > ... just count some rows of Grandsire as doubles, and some as minor by> > including the cover... I would also allow individual rows within a lead to> > be counted as different stages.> > OK, well this is back to the "pick individual changes" approach! In which> you can take a false peal at one stage and (some of the time) take out the> duplicated changes and say they are rung on a different stage. That's a weak> standard of proof - pretty much equivalent to having no standard at all.
I don't think this would be anywhere as easy to exploit as you seem to, you can only ever have 1 partial extent and can't count changes as being at a lower stage than they acually are, would you be able to give an example of a composition that exploited this rule unfairly?
One use (off the top of my head) would be if you had a treble jump minor method where the trebble hunted but just missed 5ths place, and had a doubles method where the trebble made 4 blows behind, you could ring a 600 of the minor method and 5 x 144s of the doubles with a different bell behind for each one (not the trebble) and count 2 rows from each lead of the doubles as minor with the cover, which would make up the 120 missing rows of the minor and give you a true (imho) 1320. At the moment you would be allowed to count rows from the same lead for different extents at the same stage (as in the multi-minor compositions touched on recently), so is there any good reason why not at different stages?
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080810/bce97835/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list