[r-t] Asymmetric Doubles

Matthew Frye matthew at frye.org.uk
Fri Aug 6 03:22:15 UTC 2010

Surely the origin of the term "single" is from single change? Presumably originally minor where it is essential (for extents in many methods), actually a single change and would also have been rung widely around the time the term was coined.
In that case 3/4 of the doubles "calls" could be legitimate singles, and singles on major are actually "doubles". Needless to say, even if this was the origin, convention had it's own ideas.

And what does all this tell us?
Nothing much…


On 5 Aug 2010, at 23:58, Graham John wrote:

> MBD wrote:
> 1344 Yorkshire Max comp MBD
>   53246
>   64235 Big single Home
>   64352 Middle
>   63542 Half-lead bob Home
>   35642 Wrong
>   35246 Half-lead single Middle
>   34256 Single Home
>   42356 Half-lead bob Wrong
>   64235 Big bob Before
>   53246 Big single Home
> I'm afraid that your Big single does not conform to the "nature" definition
> of a single, so it is really a type of bob. Nothing to stop you using a
> different name though - my preferred term for this type of call (pn123456)
> is a Double (i.e. two simultaneous singles).
> Graham
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list