[r-t] Scientific triples

[edward martin]

Some 25 years ago, in Indiana on a Sunday (no booze state-wide) to
give me something else to think about, I had looked at Scientific to
see how it works. At that time only two 5040s had been published
(Carter's & Pitman's). The method threatened as many as 3 long bobs
per section, but neither of these comps contained such a thing so I
set about producing wicked comps that did & sent them into the RW.
Meanwhile Roger Bailey had gone in the other direction & had produced
5040s with no long bobs at all
Birmingham's John McDonald called some of mine and then wrote that his
band were getting tired of ringing Scientific & could I come up with
something more spiky; he would call it 'Artistic  Triples'
I started from what I consider to be the root base of all similar methods:
5.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.7.1. 5.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.5.1. LH 2416375
This structure is two plain hunt blocks imposed upon a third giving
all 30 possible positional relationships between sets of trios, ie the
5040 exists in 168 equally structured blocks & all you then have to do
is link them up. This root base method can be mucked about in I would
think thousands of ways. With bits of cardboard & coloured strings I
discovered over 200 variations (including Scientific) & had hardly
scratched the surface.  (It must be possible to find complementary
blocks in order to splice a few of these but I've never looked into
this aspect)

I sent him one that I liked & they rang it at St Chad's but called it 'Martin's'

http://www.methods.org.uk/online/prin7.htm#155
5.3.1.7.1.7.3.1.7.3.7.1.3.1.7.1.7.3.1.3.1.3.7.1.7.3.1.3.7.1   LH 6712345

I've since discovered one which I think might be better called
'Artistic' and have meant to send it to Richard Grimmett & Paul Bibilo
to see what they thought but have never actually got around to doing
so

Eddie Martin


2009/1/5 Philip Earis <pje24 at cantab.net>:
> Yesterday I had the pleasure of ringing some scientific triples for the
> first time (http://www.campanophile.co.uk/show.aspx?Code=76703)
>
> Scientific is a well-known but rarely rung asymmetric principle with 30 rows
> per division:
>
> 3.1.7.1.5.1.7.1.7.5.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.5.1.5.1.7.1.7.1.7.1.7
>
> As Brian Price explains in his interesting paper published on the webpage
> www.ringing.info/bdp/triples-principles.html, Scientific "...makes use of a
> group of order 168, which is well-known to mathematicians and may be used to
> marshall the 5,040 Triples rows into 30 sets of 168. A principle such as
> Scientific must have a 7-part plain course of 7 x 30 rows, each section of
> 30 containing one from each set. The 7-part course makes use of the fact
> that the group contains 7-part transpositions; there will be 24 mutually
> true courses".
>
> I vaguely recall Eddie Martin once saying he had composed a similar
> companion method he intended to call "artistic" triples or something
> similar.  Is this correct?  What is the notation?
>
> Brian goes on to list the 229 principles that make use of this group with
> 7-lead courses and which have conventional symmetry. 6 of these additionally
> have double symmetry, whilst 23 of these are "pure triples".
>
> I'm interested in how this concept can be taken further.  Can some of these
> methods be spliced together to create a clever and challenging extent? How
> about splicing scientific with it's reverse or something similar?  What's
> possible here?
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>